Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR Libertarian Party Question Time - Ask A Porcupine! Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Where does desert come from? Why does anyone deserve anything? It being better than the alternative is a fine argument (and loosely why I believe in maintaining legal property rights), but not sufficient to create a right; merely something which should be upheld until it makes sense not to.




    Why not? Does an investment banker create more of value than the binman?
    With regard your second point, I'm a firm believer of the marginalist theory of value, if you've never come across it I'll give you the cliché example of diamonds and water;

    The reason why the price of diamonds is higher than that of water, owes to the greater additional satisfaction of the diamonds over the water. Thus, while the water has greater total utility, the diamond has greater marginal utility.

    This applies to rarer more skill based jobs that require degrees and extensive talent to undergo, for example investment banking.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    I know this wasn't directed toward me, but yaaaaaaaaaas.
    I seem to recall you expressed support for the bill in question, something I was very gratified to see. Or were you answering for Connor?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I seem to recall you expressed support for the bill in question, something I was very gratified to see. Or were you answering for Connor?
    You'll see that I already answered for myself dearie.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The state should only intervene to prevent aggression, it should not coerce people into making decisions that they haven't thought about.
    And yet there is no coercion. Perhaps if we hadn't committed to informing people that argument would hold. You still haven't detailed the ramifications, which I'm sure must be devastating, of not thinking about certain decisions. Under the government's reform 'not thinking' will result in no social negatives. Under the status quo the tendency of many to not think results in needless suffering and death.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Yes. To think otherwise would be to have a typical leftist lack of understanding of what investment bankers actually do, simply categorizing them as "those people who move paper around". In fact, they have a massively important role in the economy.

    Side note: do you guys actually call your garbage men binmen? Sounds like they come from the planet Bin
    I get the argument that they allocate funds where it is most efficient, but the fact is that investment professionals, even if we take the argument that monetary output/GDP is an adequate measure of value as a given, consistently struggle to beat markets for statistically significant periods of time. Furthermore, the necessary short-termism of markets means that an individually useful investment doesn't necessarily equate to a socially useful investment.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    You'll see that I already answered for myself dearie.
    I didn't say you didn't... I was asking if Gladstone was expressing his own opinion or if he was saying what he thought you'd say. Also, 'dearie'? :laugh:
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    With regard your second point, I'm a firm believer of the marginalist theory of value, if you've never come across it I'll give you the cliché example of diamonds and water;

    The reason why the price of diamonds is higher than that of water, owes to the greater additional satisfaction of the diamonds over the water. Thus, while the water has greater total utility, the diamond has greater marginal utility.

    This applies to rarer more skill based jobs that require degrees and extensive talent to undergo, for example investment banking.
    Diamonds are an interesting example. They're pretty poor as a store of value and their high price is largely due to a combination of clever marketing and artifically constrained supply. Most who purchase diamonds are acting irrationally and the purported consumer surplus doesn't exist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I seem to recall you expressed support for the bill in question, something I was very gratified to see. Or were you answering for Connor?
    Answering for Connor, but what bill was this?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heri2rs)
    Out of interest, what do we all think of abortion as a party because many libertarians I've met are very pro-life
    I'm pro-life with exceptions. There is no one libertarian position on this because you can argue it on the basis of the mother's right to liberty or the child's right to life. The only official party policy I would want to have is that it is definitely legal in the case of the mother's life being in danger, incest or rape. Also no public funding.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure what people mean when they say they're pro-life. Do you mean that abortion shouldn't be available so readily, or are you saying abortion (except in cases of rape, threat to life etc) should be illegal?

    How anyone who claims to be a libertarian can think a mother should be forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want is beyond me. I sometimes think people online (and especially in the MHoC) adopt these kinds of perverse and uber-traditional positions just to be contradicted.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Answering for Connor, but what bill was this?
    Organ Donation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    I'm not sure what people mean when they say they're pro-life. Do you mean that abortion shouldn't be available so readily, or are you saying abortion (except in cases of rape, threat to life etc) should be illegal?

    How anyone who claims to be a libertarian can think a mother should be forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want is beyond me. I sometimes think people online (and especially in the MHoC) adopt these kinds of perverse and uber-traditional positions just to be contradicted.
    That's a very narrow view of abortion. A fetus is more than a tumour to be excised or not at the convenience of the host organism. It is (to use someone elses phrase) a candidate member of the human race. The idea that the science is in and fetuses are somehow not alive and that killing them is the moral equivalent of picking your nose has no moral or factual grounding.

    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    I'm not sure what people mean when they say they're pro-life. Do you mean that abortion shouldn't be available so readily, or are you saying abortion (except in cases of rape, threat to life etc) should be illegal?

    How anyone who claims to be a libertarian can think a mother should be forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want is beyond me. I sometimes think people online (and especially in the MHoC) adopt these kinds of perverse and uber-traditional positions just to be contradicted.
    It's down to where you think life begins at the scientific point or some other point
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...begins-when-s/
    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    That's a very narrow view of abortion. A fetus is more than a tumour to be excised or not at the convenience of the host organism. It is (to use someone elses phrase) a candidate member of the human race. The idea that the science is in and fetuses are somehow not alive and that killing them is the moral equivalent of picking your nose has no moral or factual grounding.

    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    You should look up bodily autonomy, the reason that we can't harvest the organs of dead people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    You should look up bodily autonomy, the reason that we can't harvest the organs of dead people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Bodily autonomy doesn't extend to the right to kill other people.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Bodily autonomy doesn't extend to the right to kill other people.
    A fetus and a person are two different things. Hence why they have different definitions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    A fetus and a person are two different things. Hence why they have different definitions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    An adolescent and an octogenarian have different definitions, they're still people. The only reason to pretend that fetuses aren't people is ignorance or caprice. And even if they weren't people, they're definitely alive and they deserve the same treatment every other living thing gets. If a stray kitten was setting up shop in your bedroom would you jam scissors into its head and slurp it inside out with a hoover?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Organ Donation.
    Ah yeah, I read somewhere about opt in vs opt out and didn't really have a problem with it. If you have a society of informed people, there's no reason they shouldn't be aware that they can opt out.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    adam9317: announce confirmation
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    I'm not sure what people mean when they say they're pro-life. Do you mean that abortion shouldn't be available so readily, or are you saying abortion (except in cases of rape, threat to life etc) should be illegal?

    How anyone who claims to be a libertarian can think a mother should be forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want is beyond me. I sometimes think people online (and especially in the MHoC) adopt these kinds of perverse and uber-traditional positions just to be contradicted.
    I can't speak for the others but I'd like it to be illegal, for reasons I've already explained.
    She wasn't forced to be impregnated, therefore she bears the responsibility for childbirth
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: November 17, 2017
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.

  • 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

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