Wouldn't a libertarian society just turn into a conservative one? Watch

chloeee!
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
I know 'libertarian society' is something of an oxymoron but hopefully you know what I mean. If everybody was free to rise and fall depending on their talents, abilities, effort etc they would then have the option of sending their children to school. In a libertarian society, there would be no taxes for state schools, so children without rich parents would not be educated, and two classes would spring up - the educated and uneducated. Okay, this alone does not a conservative society make, but aren't libertarian ideas entirely paradoxical because they would inevitably lead to a world that is very illiberal?

God, I'm sorry about all these politics threads but I get so distracted by these sorts of questions when trying to revise!
5
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
What you described, is essentially an anarchist society - not a libertarian one. That being said though, when it comes to education, I don't think what you said was accurate. Access to education is useful, but not exactly the be-all-end-all in life. People can be successful in life with little, or no education at all. And, the libertarian response to this would be that in a free market, education would be delivered it a vastly different way that it is now, and because of the lack of a state monopoly, would be a lot cheaper.

Coupled with the 'no taxes' thing, you would see a lot of people being able to afford at least basic education. Which would, arguably, be provided in a manner that would be more suitable to the market, than it is now.

A true libertarian society would be a very different world to the one we have now, most of the assumptions you are making in your post are based on a view which considers things as the markets are now, which would be rather misleading.
0
reply
Redreynard
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
a libertarian wants to be free, free to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it!
such a world would allow the smart to do well. and the less smart to do badly.
but a libertarian would say "so what, the main thing is i'm free, free as a bird."
....
a socialist would say, "hey man, you can't just fly around, you've got to get to work and help all these poor people."
....
but why? what does the free flying man owe to those in the ditch?
....
a patriot would say, "you should help your countrymen, because they are like you, came from the bloodlines and culture that you came from, you owe them help as you'd have a duty to help a poorly brother."
....
the choice is freedom vs. security. do we want to be free or do we want to be safe? me, i want to be free!!! but also giving a minimal amount of support to my fellow man. not too much, i don't want to finance a lavish welfare state for the fat and the dumb!
2
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by chloeee!)
I know 'libertarian society' is something of an oxymoron but hopefully you know what I mean. If everybody was free to rise and fall depending on their talents, abilities, effort etc they would then have the option of sending their children to school. In a libertarian society, there would be no taxes for state schools, so children without rich parents would not be educated, and two classes would spring up - the educated and uneducated. Okay, this alone does not a conservative society make, but aren't libertarian ideas entirely paradoxical because they would inevitably lead to a world that is very illiberal?

God, I'm sorry about all these politics threads but I get so distracted by these sorts of questions when trying to revise!
My take is that a substantively 'libertarian' society (that is to say a propertarian or right-libertarian society) would bring us to a deeply conservative condition reminiscent of feudalism. In short, such libertarianism would singularly maintain and rewards the advantages of the wealthy and propertied to the ever increasing impoverishment of the remainder. As big fish swallowed up small we'd see a return to conditions in which hugely powerful 'lords' would dictate the terms under which the ever more alienated were given labour to sustain their existence. It's highly instructive to note that plenty of TSR 'libertarians' will openly admit their socially and culturally conservative leanings; libertarianism is the defence of wealth and the supreme power it brings over the non-wealthy, what could be more conservative than that?
3
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
It's highly instructive to note that plenty of TSR 'libertarians' will openly admit their socially and culturally conservative leanings; libertarianism is the defence of wealth and the supreme power it brings over the non-wealthy, what could be more conservative than that?
Libertarianism derives from the word liberty. Libertarians are defenders of freedom. Whether it be economic freedom or social freedom.

The personal views of libertarians are irrelevant. A libertarian does not impose their idealogy on anybody else. That is the purpose of it libertarianism.

Your notion of economic oligopoly is nonsense. Wealthy people are the only moral people. They have discovered the most valuable ways to serve others. Moreover the oligarchs if they did come to 'power' (which compared to political oligarchs would not matter) they would eventually die. As long as men die liberty never does.

A libertarian world would be a lot less unequal than our current one. The concentrations of poverty in Africa ect are caused by protectionism and immigration laws that prohibit poor people pursuing a better life. Why do we subsidise the faty and Bristish whilst banish the poor African child to poverty?

A Libertarian society would be safer as people like you would not be able to impose your dellusions on others. A Libertarian society would be more prosperous because everybodies productive potential would be maximised because workers would be free to choose. A Libertarian society would be happier because people would be freer to pursue their own goals.
6
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by turn and fall)
Libertarianism derives from the word liberty. Libertarians are defenders of freedom. Whether it be economic freedom or social freedom.

...
Libertarians are defenders of the liberties of the wealthy, those who have private property and capital of other kinds. Under libertarianism the less property you have and the less capital you have, the less liberty you can expect, and the libertarian is pretty happy with that. As I say, libertarians are invariably just a particular species of conservative where entitlement to everything, including liberty, is all about how rich you are (or aren't). The freedoms of the poor be damned.
1
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
Libertarians are defenders of the liberties of the wealthy
Don't use strawmen. Libertarians believe freedom is universal and all people should have equal protection by the rule of law.

You confuse freedom with choice. Rich people certainly have more choice but they do not have more freedom in a libertarian society. The rich having more choice is their incentive to serve others. Libertarians resolutely believe in freedom of speech. Yet in our society the rich can inpinge on the freedoms of others by using injuctions. That is the use of politics not the market.

The rich are good people assuming they gained their wealth by the market. If you make a lot of money selling a good that people value highly then you have contributed to society. The problems of wealth arise when people gain wealth through political clout such as the wealthy having their property protected by government regulation. Or government regulation stopping imports of cheaper goods to protect 'workers'. Or immigration laws that protect the soveirgn workers from being undercut by better workers.

The greatest fallacy told by left wingers is that the rich are the rich at the expense of the poor. The rich get rich by serving the poor. The rising tide lifts all vessels.
4
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by D.R.E)
What you described, is essentially an anarchist society - not a libertarian one. That being said though, when it comes to education, I don't think what you said was accurate. Access to education is useful, but not exactly the be-all-end-all in life. People can be successful in life with little, or no education at all. And, the libertarian response to this would be that in a free market, education would be delivered it a vastly different way that it is now, and because of the lack of a state monopoly, would be a lot cheaper.

Coupled with the 'no taxes' thing, you would see a lot of people being able to afford at least basic education. Which would, arguably, be provided in a manner that would be more suitable to the market, than it is now.

A true libertarian society would be a very different world to the one we have now, most of the assumptions you are making in your post are based on a view which considers things as the markets are now, which would be rather misleading.
What is anarchist society?
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by D.R.E)
What you described, is essentially an anarchist society - not a libertarian one.
Anarcho-capitalist perhaps, but the majority of anarchists are completely apposed to free market capitalism and the new libertarianism.

OP is essentially right. In a libertarian society your capital decides on how much liberty you have. So the natural hierarchy in capitalism would result in real wage slavery and inequality. Most libertarians call this "freedom".
2
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Anarcho-capitalist perhaps, but the majority of anarchists are completely apposed to free market capitalism and the new libertarianism.

OP is essentially right. In a libertarian society your capital decides on how much liberty you have. So the natural hierarchy in capitalism would result in real wage slavery and inequality. Most libertarians call this "freedom".
lol. Thank you for that rather facile summation of libertarianism. Yes, how much money one can have rather telling impact on one's standard of living, how you can equate this to liberty is beyond me. And the only 'natural hierarchy' being created is one that is between the those who are more productive than others, everyone gets what they put in, that's all. As for wage slavery, not even [i]Oswy]/i] goes to that level!

And show me a society that eradicates inequality, and I'll show you Jesus!
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
Conservative I think is the wrong word. The problem with right-libertarians is their analysis is detached. It stems, I think, from Mises' worship of the entrepreneur. He held entrepreneurs up on a pedestal, and they do so today on mises.org. Talk to any Austro-Libertarian and they'll espouse to you the glory of the entrepreneur - how all economic activity derives from his risks and investments.

The mistake is fundamental and systemic. The hero-worship of the entrepreneur clouds people from what is really the case: that capital will push for a state. That is why there has never been an anarcho-capitalist or even really a libertarian society - because capital always wants a Government. Why? Because if they have to choose between paying tax and going by regulations (which is beneficial, so long as they're the ones who decide the regulations, because it locks out their competitors) and between having no laws, no prisons and no police force to work for them, they choose the former all the time.

Capital wants the State because the State defends capital's interest, everywhere, always. Want to bomb a third world country so it will open up for capital investment? Sure. Want to lock out competition by stringent regulations? So long as you put enough money in my pocket. Want to suppress strikes and workers rebellions by troops on the street? You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...

Maybe Austro-libertarianism would be great if Capitalists hated the State. But they don't, because the State always acts in the interests of capital, whether its a 'workers state' or whether it's a bosses' state. When the State disappears, private ownership of property disappears. Are we expected to believe that the working class would accept the vagaries of free enterprise capitalism if it wasn't protected by a wall of riot shields?

(Original post by D.R.E)
lol. Thank you for that rather facile summation of libertarianism. Yes, how much money one can have rather telling impact on one's standard of living, how you can equate this to liberty is beyond me. And the only 'natural hierarchy' being created is one that is between the those who are more productive than others, everyone gets what they put in, that's all. As for wage slavery, not even [i]Oswy]/i] goes to that level!

And show me a society that eradicates inequality, and I'll show you Jesus!
So you accept hierarchy based on productivity? See how quickly you've abandoned the basic libertarian principle: that no man may control another. What does productivity have to do with having rights of control of other people? I'm more productive over you, so we'll throw equality out of the window? Nonsense. To what extent do you push this ideal? The only 'natural hierarchy' of colonialism being the more productive races over the lesser productive races, perhaps?

Let me ask you: is Phil Knight 12.7 billion times more productive than the worker who assembles the trainers that he gets his personal wealth from? Does he put in 2 billion more times than each worker at a Sony plant? 1 billion times more productive, perhaps? 1 million? 5000,000 ?250,000? 1,000? Where is his 'productivity' without the toil of those who earn a pittance of his salary and who quite often don't have education, healthcare, running water or sanitary living conditions?

Nike has a revenue of 19 billion dollars and 34,000 employees. I don't know how many of those are actual sweatshop workers, but they do not get "what they put in." That is just a ridiculous statement. They put into a 19 billion dollar company and get out something less than what someone on JSA in Britain takes.

Everyone doesn't get what everyone puts in, that's another basic fact. That is the reverse principle to profit. Profit and full renumeration of labour can necessarily never co-exist. They are two contradictory concepts.

(Original post by turn and fall)
You confuse freedom with choice. Rich people certainly have more choice but they do not have more freedom in a libertarian society
Oops. If you are employed by somebody you are coerced via duress into working for them given that the only other practical choice (especially in a libertarian society) is to starve to death. Then they pretty much control you during your hours of work. So yes, the rich have maximum freedom in that they are at the top of the hierarchy. Just suppose that you are a worker in a plant or a mill in a libertarian society: do you have the real, practical freedom to criticise your owner? Can you resist any of his demands during the ten hours that you are at work for him? The self-employed rich like doctors and lawyers are a little different but they don't really fit into the class system. They are as fully free as the Managing Director or the 'Entrepreneur' in that they don't take economic orders from anyone and the fruits of their labour aren't appropriated as profit, but they don't actually reduce anyone elses freedom in the process.
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Bagration)
So you accept hierarchy based on productivity? See how quickly you've abandoned the basic libertarian principle: that no man may control another. What does productivity have to do with having rights of control of other people? I'm more productive over you, so we'll throw equality out of the window? Nonsense. To what extent do you push this ideal? The only 'natural hierarchy' of colonialism being the more productive races over the lesser productive races, perhaps?
To be fair, that's not what I said. The poster I quoted was talking specifically about economic inequality and so-called 'freedom'. I accept that economic hierarchy, ie x has £100m; y has £20, is something that's natural in a libertarian economy/society, because those who are deemed to be more productive by the market, whether entrepreneur or footballer, will always have a larger share of the pie.

I never said anything about political power over others, so I believe I've been consistent with that libertarian principle. And also, the colonialism argument is a rather large strawman, to be fair.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by D.R.E)
To be fair, that's not what I said. The poster I quoted was talking specifically about economic inequality and so-called 'freedom'. I accept that economic hierarchy, ie x has £100m; y has £20, is something that's natural in a libertarian economy/society, because those who are deemed to be more productive by the market, whether entrepreneur or footballer, will always have a larger share of the pie.

I never said anything about political power over others, so I believe I've been consistent with that libertarian principle. And also, the colonialism argument is a rather large strawman, to be fair.
Yes, it is natural in libertarian economy because libertarian economy is based on economic hierarchy. You justify this hierarchy by saying that more 'productive' people come to the top of the hierarchy. Is this not what you said? If this is indeed what you said, why not apply it to races?

You didn't say anything about political power, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the ideology. Who owns the mass media in a libertarian society? I don't know your precise libertarian politics but I have seen many Austrians or other Libs argue that security should be provided by insurance companies. Who owns the insurance companies (and concomitantly the military power)? Well, it's not the working class, I'll tell you that much.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Excuse me if I keep editing my posts after you read them; it's a bad habit of mine. Also may I remark on how very strange it is to be arguing against right-libertarians, having been one for as long as I can remember being seriously interested in politics.)
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by Bagration)
(Excuse me if I keep editing my posts after you read them; it's a bad habit of mine.
I have that habit too, though in my case it's because I'm my own worst grammar-Nazi

(Original post by Bagration)
Also may I remark on how very strange it is to be arguing against right-libertarians, having been one for as long as I can remember being seriously interested in politics.)
You are on fire dude!
1
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by turn and fall)
Libertarians believe freedom is universal and all people should have equal protection by the rule of law.

...
Libertarians apply their own particular concept of 'freedom' (yeah, there are libraries full of argument about what 'freedom' can or should mean, your libertarian dictionary isn't going to cut it). This libertarian concept pays no attention to how far an individual can make use of their putative condition of 'being free'. This is a neat trick because it means the libertarian can make an abstract claim to defend everyone's freedom equally while in fact defending it only insofar as any individual has the wherewithal to do things. For us non-libertarians the 'freedom' to starve isn't worthy of the term, not by a long way. If we want the term 'freedom' to have any substantive meaning then we need to recognise the extent to which it relates to power, the power to do X or to not do X.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Bagration)
Conservative I think is the wrong word. The problem with right-libertarians is their analysis is detached. It stems, I think, from Mises' worship of the entrepreneur. He held entrepreneurs up on a pedestal, and they do so today on mises.org. Talk to any Austro-Libertarian and they'll espouse to you the glory of the entrepreneur - how all economic activity derives from his risks and investments.

The mistake is fundamental and systemic. The hero-worship of the entrepreneur clouds people from what is really the case: that capital will push for a state. That is why there has never been an anarcho-capitalist or even really a libertarian society - because capital always wants a Government. Why? Because if they have to choose between paying tax and going by regulations (which is beneficial, so long as they're the ones who decide the regulations, because it locks out their competitors) and between having no laws, no prisons and no police force to work for them, they choose the former all the time.

Capital wants the State because the State defends capital's interest, everywhere, always. Want to bomb a third world country so it will open up for capital investment? Sure. Want to lock out competition by stringent regulations? So long as you put enough money in my pocket. Want to suppress strikes and workers rebellions by troops on the street? You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...

Maybe Austro-libertarianism would be great if Capitalists hated the State. But they don't, because the State always acts in the interests of capital, whether its a 'workers state' or whether it's a bosses' state. When the State disappears, private ownership of property disappears. Are we expected to believe that the working class would accept the vagaries of free enterprise capitalism if it wasn't protected by a wall of riot shields?

So you accept hierarchy based on productivity? See how quickly you've abandoned the basic libertarian principle: that no man may control another. What does productivity have to do with having rights of control of other people? I'm more productive over you, so we'll throw equality out of the window? Nonsense. To what extent do you push this ideal? The only 'natural hierarchy' of colonialism being the more productive races over the lesser productive races, perhaps?

Let me ask you: is Phil Knight 12.7 billion times more productive than the worker who assembles the trainers that he gets his personal wealth from? Does he put in 2 billion more times than each worker at a Sony plant? 1 billion times more productive, perhaps? 1 million? 5000,000 ?250,000? 1,000? Where is his 'productivity' without the toil of those who earn a pittance of his salary and who quite often don't have education, healthcare, running water or sanitary living conditions?

Nike has a revenue of 19 billion dollars and 34,000 employees. I don't know how many of those are actual sweatshop workers, but they do not get "what they put in." That is just a ridiculous statement. They put into a 19 billion dollar company and get out something less than what someone on JSA in Britain takes.

Everyone doesn't get what everyone puts in, that's another basic fact. That is the reverse principle to profit. Profit and full renumeration of labour can necessarily never co-exist. They are two contradictory concepts.

Oops. If you are employed by somebody you are coerced via duress into working for them given that the only other practical choice (especially in a libertarian society) is to starve to death. Then they pretty much control you during your hours of work. So yes, the rich have maximum freedom in that they are at the top of the hierarchy. Just suppose that you are a worker in a plant or a mill in a libertarian society: do you have the real, practical freedom to criticise your owner? Can you resist any of his demands during the ten hours that you are at work for him? The self-employed rich like doctors and lawyers are a little different but they don't really fit into the class system. They are as fully free as the Managing Director or the 'Entrepreneur' in that they don't take economic orders from anyone and the fruits of their labour aren't appropriated as profit, but they don't actually reduce anyone elses freedom in the process.
Yes but freedom of association and labour laws under libertarianism accounts for this very easily, no one is "protecting capital", that would involve forcing people to work for certain organisations. Not only can people choose to work for a different trainer company, but if the renumeration for their work is so poor they can go be self sufficient and see how that works out. Slavery is exploitation. Providing someone with a better quality of life is only to be appreciated however fully renumerated you think they should should be for their work. Assuming humans are rational actors, why else would they take a job unless they are better off then they would be without it? thats still a net positive to them however much the guy above them is making. They are still profiting in that sense.

You seem to be insisting that being an entrepreneur is the ultimate form of freedom, when in fact they have to work damn hard, as well as have great ideas, vision and willpower. It's a lot of responsibility. you seem to be implying is that money=freedom, and so it very easy to see where you are going wrong. Also it's not that hard to live a subsistance or self-sufficient life, theres millions upon millions doing it RIGHT NOW, theres no employers forcing them to work for them, they are not that lucky, but they are doing it, many of them without "freedom" as you or i define it.
1
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by D.R.E)
...I accept that economic hierarchy, ie x has £100m; y has £20, is something that's natural in a libertarian economy/society, because those who are deemed to be more productive by the market, whether entrepreneur or footballer, will always have a larger share of the pie.

...
I would ask you to question the moral legitimacy of a system which can see a desperately hard-working and honest peasant in Africa, China or wherever, struggle to feed their family because the market 'deems' their inability to compete with super-financed agro-business their own problem. Where's the humanity dude? Where is the peasant's 'liberty'? A system is not legitimate just because it is a system and those who have larger shares of pies in capitalism simply use them to consolidate and expand their advantages, hard-work and humanity easily having little to do with that cycle.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by Oswy)
I would ask you to question the moral legitimacy of a system which can see a desperately hard-working and honest peasant in Africa, China or wherever, struggle to feed their family because the market 'deems' their inability to compete with super-financed agro-business their own problem. Where's the humanity dude? Where is the peasant's 'liberty'? A system is not legitimate just because it is a system and those who have larger shares of pies in capitalism simply use them to consolidate and expand their advantages, hard-work and humanity easily having little to do with that cycle.
Heres the problem.....If you believe this, you are free to go and help the farmers, purchase their goods etc The problem isn't lack of freedom in this situation. It's a lack of people giving a **** to do the right thing.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by the realist)
Yes but freedom of association and labour laws under libertarianism accounts for this very easily, no one is "protecting capital", that would involve forcing people to work for certain organisations. Not only can people choose to work for a different trainer company, but if the renumeration for their work is so poor they can go be self sufficient and see how that works out.
So "Starve or work for me" because "Starve or work for me, or work for my friend." Plainly you have missed the point. And there it is again, you even admit it yourself. If you don't like the wages I'm paying you, go starve!

(Original post by the realist)
Slavery is exploitation. Providing someone with a better quality of life is only to be appreciated however fully renumerated you think they should should be for their work. Assuming humans are rational actors, why else would they take a job unless they are better off then they would be without it? thats still a net positive to them however much the guy above them is making. They are still profiting in that sense.
You are so close to nailing the point yet so far. Why would people work if they're not better off? Because the alternative is starvation. Either you work for the profit of the bosses or you will starve. Yes, earning a dollar an hour is better than earning no dollars an hour. This is to construct a society that robs people of all their dignity.

(Original post by the realist)
You seem to be insisting that being an entrepreneur is the ultimate form of freedom, when in fact they have to work damn hard, as well as have great ideas, vision and willpower. It's a lot of responsibility. you seem to be implying is that money=freedom, and so it very easy to see where you are going wrong. Also it's not that hard to live a subsistance or self-sufficient life, theres millions upon millions doing it RIGHT NOW, theres no employers forcing them to work for them, they are not that lucky, but they are doing it, many of them without "freedom" as you or i define it.
And for working "damn hard" (like any other working person does, by the way) they are rewarded not just by total material wealth but by the actual economic domination of other human beings. So much for libertarian equality - this is the crutch on which your argument stands. The entrepreneur works hard and has vision and so he is rewarded by becoming a member of the ruling class.

Incidentally being an entrepreneur is the ultimate form of freedom because you have total control over your life so long as you remain rich. The working class do not have this luxury. They must toil in conditions not of their own choosing for the benefit of the entrepreneur.

Those who are not so lucky to be born with his intelligence, or who happen to be born into a ghetto rather than the suburbs of middle class London, or who are born with some kind of disability are born to the bottom of the hierarchy and to be looked after by charity for the rest of their life. This society is only one that an entrepreneur would opt to live in. This is no coincidence because (our present) society is constructed by entrepreneurs for the benefit of entrepreneurs.

Since you do not seem to have grasped that political economy is not a dichotomy between laissez-faire liberalism and command economics, I offer you the contrary scenario: the abolition of private control of surplus. For industry and employment to be not just managed by controlled and owned by those who work in it, for the benefit of those who work in it. In this manner hierarchy will be abolished in the workplace and we will actually have ultimate economic freedom. Capitalism asserts that freedom is the ability of individuals to exclude other individuals from the use of scarce resources. This can in no way be declared 'freedom' when it is more accurately described as theft.

Since you declare yourself 'the realist' I will offer you a second proposition. What would happen to the wealth of humanity if it was shared between those who produce it in commons as opposed to 90% of it being owned by 1% of the population? The mathematics of it is that total production could fall by half and yet people would still actually own much, much more in material terms than they did before.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (564)
37.65%
No - but I will (117)
7.81%
No - I don't want to (108)
7.21%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (709)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All