The Student Room Group

The Libertarian Society of TSR.

Scroll to see replies

not
that's a strong statement if ever i heard one, what are the extreme cases? the ones which aren't self regulating? that's a bit like saying "Y is true... except when it's not."


Pretty much. The media has to be oif good quality to sell and continue making profit; If it is caught to be lying, it should be made to pay. The knock-on effects of lying would include loss of sales, libel cases, etc. The government has no need to control the media, at all.
Reply 101
not
don't be silly. the nation state is gone under libertarianism.


Lovely yes. At the same time, most libertarians accept that one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to defend citizens from any kind of foreign aggression or force- this would of course require some kind of controls on immigration.
Beekeeper
Lovely yes. At the same time, most libertarians accept that one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to defend citizens from any kind of foreign aggression or force- this would of course require some kind of controls on immigration.


Only roles of the stae is to defend the citizen from foreign aggression:s-smilie:
You remind me of the mad hatter from Alice in wonderland.

What about ensuring decent health care
What about equality of education
What about the bare essentials water homes gas electricity


No lets introduce market forces crate a cartel. I don’t want my degree sponcered by Tesco’s thank you very much.
Reply 103
DemonDemonic
[random socialist rant]


"This is a society set up for the promotion of libertarian values, and discussion between likeminded individuals who follow this important political philosophy." - Post #1
numero sept

As for multiculturalism, well what about it? Live any culture you want. Just don't initiate force or fraud against someone else's person or property.


Well this is where im staunchly different.

I'd be happy to believe in Freedom and all that comes with that. But my eyes are open enough to see that Multiculturalism is a dangerous concept. I believe in preservation, the continuum of people's and culture. Multiculturalism directly opposes that in the West and many who support Multiculturalism are happy and unconcerned about the Indigenous people's dwindling numbers, low birth rate and potential displacement. I think this is a shame, it shouldn't be a crime to admire and love ones own and want them to continue to thrive. I think Freedom in this respect has and will lead to future difficulties. My preservationist stance applies to Animals also, Im very pro animal rights.

Preservationism isn't about Hate for others, it's about Love for one's own people.
Reply 105
Dalendless Shid
Well this is where im staunchly different.

I'd be happy to believe in Freedom and all that comes with that. But my eyes are open enough to see that Multiculturalism is a dangerous concept. I believe in preservation, the continuum of people's and culture. Multiculturalism directly opposes that in the West and many who support Multiculturalism are happy and unconcerned about the Indigenous people's dwindling numbers, low birth rate and potential displacement. I think this is a shame, it shouldn't be a crime to admire and love ones own and want them to continue to thrive. I think Freedom in this respect has and will lead to future difficulties. My preservationist stance applies to Animals also, Im very pro animal rights.

Preservationism isn't about Hate for others, it's about Love for one's own people.


Libertarians are not collectivists, we don't think of ourselves as attached to some collective unit of 'our own people'.
'Culture' is a weak concept and one which should not in any way take precedence over individual freedom and liberties. If you start stripping people of their freedoms in order to secure a little 'culture', then the chances are you will probably lose both. You can not force people to accept a certain way of life, not only is it absolutely immoral, but it is impracticable in every possible sense- force and coercion is wrong and inhumane, it is the one thing Libertarians seek to end by limiting the power of Government.

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it." Mikhail Bakunin
I too would back a system of points.

We are libertarians, not anarchists. I personally believe the state has a role to ensure some degree of equality of oppertunity, insofar as a society where only the rich can be educated is not free, no matter how much government influence there is. This needs to be paid out of tax - this is unfortunate, but of course necessary, to ensure a free, meritocratic society. This means we have a state and a society - even if it's made up only of different inidividuals - that is open to abuse if it's allowed to occur. As such, we do need some checks on immigration.

And what better factor to allow immigration than on the basis of market forces? That way, if a person's deemed useful to the market, they can come in, and those who are not cannot. This has the effect of, for the most part, meaning that most of the immigrants who come will be able to pay into the tax system and thus not get a free ride.

I don't advocate total equality of oppertunity - that would mean stripping all resources from people every generation. I merely advocate a society where anyone can succeed in a meritocratic way if they are good enough. This has knock on factors for immigration.
Beekeeper
Libertarians are not collectivists, we don't think of ourselves as attached to some collective unit of 'our own people'.
'Culture' is a weak concept and one which should not in any way take precedence over individual freedom and liberties. If you start stripping people of their freedoms in order to secure a little 'culture', then the chances are you will probably lose both. You can not force people to accept a certain way of life, not only is it absolutely immoral, but it is impracticable in every possible sense- force and coercion is wrong and inhumane, it is the one thing Libertarians seek to end by limiting the power of Government.

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it." Mikhail Bakunin


I agree with much of that, but i feel that innately within us, we do have a sense of belonging to certain groups, based upon mainly biological and geographical factors. Both of these overlap with Culture at some point or another.

As a Libertarian, Do you accept that it's ok for people to stick with certain groups(race) aslong as they all desire it themselves? For that is taboo in this society, but again, if people want it as a collective, then it should be permitted for them to do so.

You highlighted culture, but by "our people", the main element of kinship is race and blood. That far supercedes culture and nation. Race and culture are identities, one is distinct, the other is vague, but they both share a strong resemblance to one another, that the culture was created and continue's to evolve shaped upon it's original creators. Culture reflects it's people.
Beekeeper
I am in support of a points-based system- I doubt many libertarians believe in 'open borders' with 'no immigration controls at all' tbh, thats just completely impracticable.



Yes they do.

Multiculturalism directly opposes that in the West and many who support Multiculturalism are happy and unconcerned about the Indigenous people's dwindling numbers, low birth rate and potential displacement.


So? As long as people are living freely, it shouldn't matter.

I think this is a shame, it shouldn't be a crime to admire and love ones own and want them to continue to thrive. I think Freedom in this respect has and will lead to future difficulties.


When has it? If problems arise with too much "multiculturalism" then the market would sort it out.
We have a responsibility to the community and our people as a whole with regard to the future.


Man's only respsonbility is to himself. A person owns themselves and has complete sovereignty over themselves. That's the very base of libertarianism.
numero sept
Yes they do.



So? As long as people are living freely, it shouldn't matter.


When has it? If problems arise with too much "multiculturalism" then the market would sort it out.


Political Correctness makes it a crime, if you are exclusively White. Simply, the term "Racist" is enough to feel guilt for doing so.

Also, it should matter, the demise of a group of people, the replacement, is a huge scale change. And not for the better. Ethnic cleansing.

I'm seeing a pattern with this Libertarian thinking, It's so inward thinking in terms of individualism, that it fails to see the impact and consequences of Collective movement and belief. Every person is an individual, yet they share in common many things with other people whom form a collective. When their numbers grow and displace the original set of people's, you then have an entirely new situation. This isn't good for the existing majority.

I do believe as people we should pull together for the community, sometimes this individualism sounds akin to selfishness. We owe alot to who we are and where we came, how we were born here and what happened in the past that's given us such freedoms, these can't be abused individually if they impact on the Group negatively.
Oi, Seppy, can you explain to me your view of what the difference between a Libertarian - that is, a person who follows the general views of Liberalism as set out by Locke, Rousseau etc - and an anarchist? You seem to be confused.
I simply take libertarian views to their logical conclusion, which is the lack of a state.

Every person is an individual, yet they share in common many things with other people whom form a collective. When their numbers grow and displace the original set of people's, you then have an entirely new situation. This isn't good for the existing majority.


Libertarians value community in itself, but want voluntary social interactions.
numero sept
I simply take libertarian views to their logical conclusion, which is the lack of a state.


Thats why when you say "Libertarians think this" you're wrong. Libertarians acknowledge the need for a state. You're not taking it to its logical conclusion. Its "logical conclusion" is anarchism, and that's not, ta-da, Liberalism.

You didn't answer my question. Whats the difference between Libs and Anarchists?
Beekeeper
Lovely yes. At the same time, most libertarians accept that one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to defend citizens from any kind of foreign aggression or force- this would of course require some kind of controls on immigration.

how is immigration a foreign force? it is a process of the individual.

Globalisation has rendered the nationstate null leaving a gap global government, global libertarian government cannot have internal controls on movement.
DanGrover
Thats why when you say "Libertarians think this" you're wrong. Libertarians acknowledge the need for a state. You're not taking it to its logical conclusion. Its "logical conclusion" is anarchism, and that's not, ta-da, Liberalism.

You didn't answer my question. Whats the difference between Libs and Anarchists?


Liberalism and libertarianism are distinct.

And market anarchists are libertarians. We simply take base libertarian beliefs to their logical conclusion, as I said.
numero sept
Liberalism and libertarianism are distinct.


They are the same thing!

And market anarchists are libertarians. We simply take base libertarian beliefs to their logical conclusion, as I said.


No, "market anarchists" are anarchists. Thus the "anarchist" bit. The logical conclusion of Democratic Socialism is complete communism - yet they are completely different things!

And answer the question!! What's the difference between a liberal and an anarchist? Or, for that matter, an anarchist and a 'market' anarchist?
DanGrover
They are the same thing!


They are not. Libertarianism draws upon liberalism as an influence.



No, "market anarchists" are anarchists. Thus the "anarchist" bit. The logical conclusion of Democratic Socialism is complete communism - yet they are completely different things!


The logical conclusion of libertarianism is market anarchism. If all social interactions are to be voluntary, and no one is permitted to initiate force, then this invalidates the existence of government. But the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression are still central.



And answer the question!! What's the difference between a liberal and an anarchist? Or, for that matter, an anarchist and a 'market' anarchist?


An anarchist rejects the concept of a state.
So long as the immigrants do not loot off the state through benefits, i see no problem with open borders. The police and army should have powers to detain those who pose a threat to this country, but it should be in a libertarians best interests to surround himself with those who are productive. Trade makes us all richer; The more free agents we have, the richer we all become.
numero sept
An anarchist rejects the concept of a state.


Anarchist = rejects state (A = B)

The logical conclusion of libertarianism is market anarchism.


Market anarchist = liberalism to logical conclusion. (C = D)

I simply take libertarian views to their logical conclusion, which is the lack of a state.


Liberalism to it's logical conclusion = reject state (D = B)

If D = B, then D also equals A (since B = A), ergo Liberalism to its logical conclusion is Anarchism. Also, it means A = C, ergo that Anarchists are the same as Market anarchists. All four variables equate to the same thing.

Given that we KNOW Liberals DO justify the existence of the state, they (E) cannot = B - therefore, they are not anarchist.

You cannot tell me this is wrong - this is ALL based on what you have said.

Quick Reply