Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    As I already mentioned, the key tenet of libertarianism is individualism. According to that ideology, the government should create equal opportunity, not aim for equal (or anything close to equal) results. Redistribution of income is, by definition, not libertarian. As Milton Friedman pointed out, you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom, and limiting economic freedom by large-scale government intervention in the economy, will decrease the amount of liberty enjoyed by the people. You cannot logically support the creation of a large government and then complain when it decides to use its power.
    By no means would I want everyone to be economically equal. That would not be libertarian. But as you said, equal opportunity is fundamental to libertarianism, and welfare is designed to give poor people opportunity, not advantage.

    The rehabilitation of prisoners also stems from this ideal. A libertarian might argue that a criminal has not been given the oppurtunity to be a good person, from bad upbringing or whatever. Rehabilitation gives them this chance. However, rehabilitation does not mean letting people off. Criminals serve time in prison, and have their freedom taken away until their time has been served. However, the emphasis of this process should be on rehabilitation.

    Some authoritarians think that libertarians just want to leave criminals roam the street. They don't, as this affects the liberty of good, non-crime commiting people.

    In no part of this thread did I put socialist. 'Caring for those less fortunate than ourselves' meant giving them the opportunity and morale to succeed for themselves. 'Trying to understand and help trouble makers' meant giving them the chance to become better people, but by no means by letting them get away with their crimes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    As I already mentioned, the key tenet of libertarianism is individualism. According to that ideology, the government should create equal opportunity,
    I think that, perhaps, this should be "the government should prevent UNequal opportunity", trying to create equal opportunity implies interference in people's individualism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowkin)
    Sorry, there is.

    '''Libertarian left' is the name given to a political group or individual who has left wing economic opinions and believes in minimal state intervention in people's live''

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_left
    Its utter nonsense. You cannot be socialist and call yourself a libertarian.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Its utter nonsense. You cannot be socialist and call yourself a libertarian.
    The only people in this thread who have been talking about socialism are the ones arguing against it! Please read my post. No 21 I think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    By no means would I want everyone to be economically equal. That would not be libertarian. But as you said, equal opportunity is fundamental to libertarianism, and welfare is designed to give poor people opportunity, not advantage.

    The rehabilitation of prisoners also stems from this ideal. A libertarian might argue that a criminal has not been given the oppurtunity to be a good person, from bad upbringing or whatever. Rehabilitation gives them this chance. However, rehabilitation does not mean letting people off. Criminals serve time in prison, and have their freedom taken away until their time has been served. However, the emphasis of this process should be on rehabilitation.

    Some authoritarians think that libertarians just want to leave criminals roam the street. They don't, as this affects the liberty of good, non-crime commiting people.

    In no part of this thread did I put socialist. 'Caring for those less fortunate than ourselves' meant giving them the opportunity and morale to succeed for themselves. 'Trying to understand and help trouble makers' meant giving them the chance to become better people, but by no means by letting them get away with their crimes.

    But this all isn't very individualistic. The government is still required to interfere in people's lives, even if it is attempting to improve them. The principle of Libertarianism is laissez-faire - not trying to create an equal playing field but leaving people to self-determination. The job of teh gov. is minimal - to keep the law, protect property and contract rights, and defend against foreign enemies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    The only people in this thread who have been talking about socialism are the ones arguing against it! Please read my post. No 21 I think.
    Just because you don't mention that word, doesn't mean that it doesn't describe what you are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    But this all isn't very individualistic. The government is still required to interfere in people's lives, even if it is attempting to improve them. The principle of Libertarianism is laissez-faire - not trying to create an equal playing field but leaving people to self-determination. The job of teh gov. is minimal - to keep the law, protect property and contract rights, and defend against foreign enemies.
    But surely there should be an equal playing field? That's what I believe anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    By no means would I want everyone to be economically equal. That would not be libertarian. But as you said, equal opportunity is fundamental to libertarianism, and welfare is designed to give poor people opportunity, not advantage.
    No, no, no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    But surely there should be an equal playing field? That's what I believe anyway.
    How are you going to engineer a level playing field?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Just because you don't mention that word, doesn't mean that it doesn't describe what you are.
    But you associate the ideals of socialism with making people economically equal. And I don't believe in that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Seriously you have to remove the word Libertarian from your thread title, it's absurd
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    But you associate the ideals of socialism with making people economically equal. And I don't believe in that.
    The Welfare State attempts to make people more economically equal. You believe in the Welfar State. Therefore you believe in making people more economically equal. Therefore you believe in socialism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    Seriously you have to remove the word Libertarian from your thread title, it's absurd
    Ok. I put it to all of you. Find a word for this thread. With a full definition of the word which must corresponds to what I stand for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    Ok. I put it to all of you. Find a word for this thread. With a full definition of the word which must corresponds to what I stand for.
    I'm being quite mild here - social democracy.
    I can't be bothered with a definition, ask some socialists, they'll tell you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    Ok. I put it to all of you. Find a word for this thread. With a full definition of the word which must corresponds to what I stand for.
    "welfare is designed to give poor people opportunity"

    if you're saying something you favour is designed to do something, then you have to acknowledge it's intervening, and if you intervene you're not libertarian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    As I already mentioned, the key tenet of libertarianism is individualism. According to that ideology, the government should create equal opportunity, not aim for equal (or anything close to equal) results. Redistribution of income is, by definition, not libertarian. As Milton Friedman pointed out, you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom, and limiting economic freedom by large-scale government intervention in the economy, will decrease the amount of liberty enjoyed by the people. You cannot logically support the creation of a large government and then complain when it decides to use its power.
    Whether illogical or not, I reserve the right to complain about certain legislation. I understand what you are saying, and in theory it makes sense. However, in reality (in terms of my own independent thoughts) I feel that I can support the creation of a large government, whilst still disagreeing with some of their policies. Is it not ok to feel that certain aspects of a political line of thought are 'right', and that others are 'wrong'? Should I just make my mind up one way or the other, and then follow that ideology without questions? Possibly, but I am not sure that I will be able to
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    Ok. I put it to all of you. Find a word for this thread. With a full definition of the word which must corresponds to what I stand for.
    How are you going to engineer a level playing field?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    How are you going to engineer a level playing field?
    By trying to make sure that everyone gets a good education, is brought up in a good environment, and has enough money to live a reasonably. They are free to do what they want to increase how much money they earn, but there should still be a minimum that a person lives on. Thats where welfare comes in. But nowhere have I said that people should be made equal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    By trying to make sure that everyone gets a good education, is brought up in a good environment, and has enough money to live a reasonably.
    How do you intend to do that? What sort of policies and spending do you envisage?

    They are free to do what they want to increase how much money they earn, but there should still be a minimum that a person lives on. Thats where welfare comes in. But nowhere have I said that people should be made equal.
    My family is incredibly wealthy. What are you going to do for the poor working class boy to help him have as many opportunities on the level playing field as myself?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    Ok. I put it to all of you. Find a word for this thread. With a full definition of the word which must corresponds to what I stand for.
    I don't know any single word that mixes "Big Hearted", "Charitable", "Freedom Loving" and "Hopeful possessor of other people's wallets". Call yourselves Friendly Bandits, maybe?
 
 
 
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: June 12, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

3,037

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.