Turn on thread page Beta

"Libertarianism is a dangerous and selfish ideology". What are your views? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm a libertarian as far as it is possible to be one and still wish to remain a member of society.

    I wouldn't see taxation as "theft" but I certainly regard it as an act of confiscating one persons money and redistributing it to someone the government thinks is more worthy. With some exceptions I consider that an evil thing.

    Libertarians believe in small, non interfering, non nannying governments who keep their noses out of private individuals affairs and trust those individuals will make wiser decisions about how they spend their money than they as a government can do.

    Now't wrong with that.
    If private individuals spent their money 'wisely' then we wouldn't have big government in the first place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    If private individuals spent their money 'wisely' then we wouldn't have big government in the first place.
    I spend mine wisely.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I spend mine wisely.
    I very much doubt that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    I very much doubt that.
    Great debate about libertarianism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Great debate about libertarianism.
    Go on then, tell me how your wise spending helps society's ills?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Go on then, tell me how your wise spending helps society's ills?
    I didn't say my wise spending helps society's ills. I wasn't put on this planet to help society, only myself. Who do you think I am, Karl bloody Marx?

    However, my wise spending does prevent me from becoming a burden on the State and if more people spent wisely we could have a smaller, cheaper, less bureaucratic, and more efficient government. I don't see anything wrong with that as a concept.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I didn't say my wise spending helps society's ills. I wasn't put on this planet to help society, only myself. Who do you think I am, Karl bloody Marx?

    However, my wise spending does prevent me from becoming a burden on the State and if more people spent wisely we could have a smaller, cheaper, less bureaucratic, and more efficient government. I don't see anything wrong with that as a concept.
    Right, you prove the point that Libertarianism is a selfish philosophy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Right, you prove the point that Libertarianism is a selfish philosophy.
    If you put "helping society" at the top of your list of priorities I'd be bound to agree with you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it would be far more useful for us to discuss modern liberalism, which takes a much more pragmatic and responsible attitude to the role of government. As a strong advocate of it, let me elaborate.

    I think that classical liberalism is almost irrelevant now, Milton Friedman showed some signs of it but today his views are no longer part of conventional debate. Our gradual conversion to long-term universal suffrage and its success has led to everyone accepting that taxation and a powerful government is necessary. But they have not reached this conclusion because poor people have got the vote; even the most passionate liberal should now espouse the benefits of taxation just as much as anybody.

    Liberalism is about encouraging individuals to succeed as individuals, it is based on the notion that you and I can spend a pound much more effectively than any government could. And that by allowing individuals to compete makes them produce much more efficiently and with greater benefits. But for the true benefits of competition to be realised, people must compete on a level playing field. Modern liberals contend that liberalism is truly about equality of opportunity, and that by a degree of state intervention, creating a society where everyone can aspire to the highest offices in the land is the most effective way to make individuals succeed.

    If we do not intervene to create true equality of opportunity, then it is the class system, not the content of your character, which determines the likelihood that you are to succeed in life. There is nothing liberal about a free society; liberalism means breeding success through individual abilities, how that is achieved is irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomhitchings)
    I think it would be far more useful for us to discuss modern liberalism, which takes a much more pragmatic and responsible attitude to the role of government. As a strong advocate of it, let me elaborate.

    I think that classical liberalism is almost irrelevant now, Milton Friedman showed some signs of it but today his views are no longer part of conventional debate. Our gradual conversion to long-term universal suffrage and its sucess has led to everyone accepting that taxation and a powerful government is nessicary. But they have not reached this conclusion because poor people have got the vote, even the most passionate liberal should now espouse the benefits of taxation just as much as anybody.

    Liberalism is about encouraging individuals to suceed as individuals, it is based on the notion that you and I can spend a pound much more effectively than any government could. And that by allowing individuals to compete makes them produce much more efficiently and with greater benefits. But for the true benefits of competition to be realised, people must compete on a level playing field. Modern liberals contend that liberalism is truly about equality of opportunity, and that by a degree of state intervention, creating a society where everyone can aspire to the higest offices in the land is the most effective way to make individuals suceed.

    If we do not intervene to create true equality of opportunity, then it is the class system, not the content of your character, that determines the likelihood that you are to suceed in life. There is nothing liberal about a free society, liberalism means breeding sucess through individual abilities, how that is achieved is irrelevant.
    woooooah essay
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomhitchings)
    I think it would be far more useful for us to discuss modern liberalism, which takes a much more pragmatic and responsible attitude to the role of government. As a strong advocate of it, let me elaborate.

    I think that classical liberalism is almost irrelevant now, Milton Friedman showed some signs of it but today his views are no longer part of conventional debate. Our gradual conversion to long-term universal suffrage and its success has led to everyone accepting that taxation and a powerful government is necessary. But they have not reached this conclusion because poor people have got the vote; even the most passionate liberal should now espouse the benefits of taxation just as much as anybody.

    Liberalism is about encouraging individuals to succeed as individuals, it is based on the notion that you and I can spend a pound much more effectively than any government could. And that by allowing individuals to compete makes them produce much more efficiently and with greater benefits. But for the true benefits of competition to be realised, people must compete on a level playing field. Modern liberals contend that liberalism is truly about equality of opportunity, and that by a degree of state intervention, creating a society where everyone can aspire to the highest offices in the land is the most effective way to make individuals succeed.

    If we do not intervene to create true equality of opportunity, then it is the class system, not the content of your character, which determines the likelihood that you are to succeed in life. There is nothing liberal about a free society; liberalism means breeding success through individual abilities, how that is achieved is irrelevant.
    So you'd say you were an advocate of social liberalism then? And that some people need a step up before they are able to help themselves? I agree with that to an extent, but I question its usefulness as surely in a world where some succeed and some fail inequality is natural, and therefore the conditions for required social liberalism are self propogating (sp?). However, if you're happy to accept that some people will always need the helping hand of the state, than an acceptance of social liberalism is perfectly reasonable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Right, you prove the point that Libertarianism is a selfish philosophy.

    actually i think the concept of spending ones money wisely and taking care of ones own resposibilities is not selfish. though i do think the idea that people will never be able to help themselves with out the supervision and doling out of funds by others is incredibly selfish, egotistical, and condesending. you are basically calling people stupid and then telling them they have to personal culpability for the consequence of their actions. you are so stuck on yourself that you really think everyone else is a blithering moron and cannot possibly do it on their own.... so we better do it for them...
    having said that i do think there is a balance, mostly in cases of emergency aid, those situations which could not have easily been forseen. but i do not feel it is the governments job to make sure poor people have cable, mcdonalds, and a night out every weekend. I work hard, i do a good deal of community work, and i take care of my family and pay my mortgage and it is hard. and i have to say it pisses me off when i see welfare cases out stocking up on food and beer while i am struggling to keep spagetti in the pantry... but hey college isa *****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    liberalism... or rather communism which is what people seems to be talking about i feel is more selfish by far and promotes laziness. If the idea is that people will inherently make bad choices..... then why keep bailing them out? aren't you just raising a culture of laziness? is this a popular idea in Europe and UK?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcspence)
    actually i think the concept of spending ones money wisely and taking care of ones own resposibilities is not selfish.
    You're saying that looking after number one is not selfish???
    though i do think the idea that people will never be able to help themselves with out the supervision and doling out of funds by others is incredibly selfish,
    No, its a harsh reality.l There will always be people who fail, whether its through a failed business venture, or circumstance. For example, I would not have gone to a private school without the help of the state. I would'nt be going to university without the help of the state. So in this way the state is assisting me so that in the future I am less of a burden on the state. That is what social liberalism is all about.
    egotistical, and condesending. you are basically calling people stupid and then telling them they have to personal culpability for the consequence of their actions. you are so stuck on yourself that you really think everyone else is a blithering moron and cannot possibly do it on their own.... so we better do it for them...
    I think this may reflect what you think of people who apparently "scrounge" from the state. Personally I belive the vast majority of people who recieve money from the state (and I don't mean just welfare and benefits) deserve it, and such government assistance and intervention is neccesary. Two such examples in the UK-

    i) The New Deal, which gave businesses tax breaks in order to create jobs and take on long term unemployed, especially the young without prospects, and middle aged people (ie 45-55) who could not find work.

    ii) Tax credits for those who do work, but are single parents, or on a low wage, or both.
    having said that i do think there is a balance, mostly in cases of emergency aid, those situations which could not have easily been forseen. but i do not feel it is the governments job to make sure poor people have cable, mcdonalds, and a night out every weekend. I work hard, i do a good deal of community work, and i take care of my family and pay my mortgage and it is hard. and i have to say it pisses me off when i see welfare cases out stocking up on food and beer while i am struggling to keep spagetti in the pantry... but hey college isa *****.
    Perhaps your promotion of libertarianism is a result of what you percieve the role of the government to be. 95% of unemployed people aren't lazy, and don't sponge from the government, but are stuck in an unemployment trap, where through changing industries, or through a simple lack of basic skills (I'm talking literacy too here) they cannot find work. Government intervention, such as grants for learning courses, as well as benefit so that families don't starve to death whilst there is no breadwinner, is entirely necessary in order to bring these people back into society so that they can support themselves.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcspence)
    actually i think the concept of spending ones money wisely and taking care of ones own resposibilities is not selfish. though i do think the idea that people will never be able to help themselves with out the supervision and doling out of funds by others is incredibly selfish, egotistical, and condesending. you are basically calling people stupid and then telling them they have to personal culpability for the consequence of their actions. you are so stuck on yourself that you really think everyone else is a blithering moron and cannot possibly do it on their own.... so we better do it for them...
    having said that i do think there is a balance, mostly in cases of emergency aid, those situations which could not have easily been forseen. but i do not feel it is the governments job to make sure poor people have cable, mcdonalds, and a night out every weekend. I work hard, i do a good deal of community work, and i take care of my family and pay my mortgage and it is hard. and i have to say it pisses me off when i see welfare cases out stocking up on food and beer while i am struggling to keep spagetti in the pantry... but hey college isa *****.
    Just incase you're confused.

    I don't consider anyone inferior to me, but I recognise that a lot of people are born into (or have thrust upon them) circumstances which work against them. I think the state is best placed to help people, not after they've hit rock bottom as private charity tends to, but before. The purpose of state aid is to help "welfare cases" up into work and self sufficiency. I don't believe people can't help themselves, but I see no reason why we should force those who find it difficult to rot in poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    So you'd say you were an advocate of social liberalism then? And that some people need a step up before they are able to help themselves? I agree with that to an extent, but I question its usefulness as surely in a world where some succeed and some fail inequality is natural, and therefore the conditions for required social liberalism are self propogating (sp?). However, if you're happy to accept that some people will always need the helping hand of the state, than an acceptance of social liberalism is perfectly reasonable.
    Sorry if I didn't make it clear, I was advocating equality of opportunity, not equality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomhitchings)
    Sorry if I didn't make it clear, I was advocating equality of opportunity, not equality.
    The two are inextricably linked. The rich will always have more opportunity. Equity and equality are two beasts of a very similar, but not identical, nature. I would argue that the primary objective of most social welfare programs is to achieve equity more than equality, and that it's only through equity that human capital is not wasted.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 3, 2004
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.