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

TSR Libertarian Party Question Time - Ask A Porcupine! Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I will choose to take this as a joke about them not having a designated leader, rather than denigration. :holmes:
    As it was meant
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heri2rs)
    Perhaps, but you could change the price of your commodity, allowing more money to be printed. I know it's antithetical to a free market, but I haven't read enough Rothbard or Hayek to find a solution.

    What do you think of roads? Statists love harassing me with that argument
    I don't have any issue with private roads in general, but I do think that where geographical realities create natural monopolies the state should intervene to restrict the inherent ill effects on those who have to regularly use those roads. I see no issue with locally mandated companies building and maintaining roads in line with local desires, and to an extent accept that businesses would be incentivised to support their upkeep. It would also possibly lead to people not making unnecessary car journeys which would be grand.

    in the mean time I will happily use government roads because I have already paid a great deal of tax in my relatively short life and thus consider myself to have paid for them - and plenty that I will never use :lol:

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    As it was meant
    I believe you, thousands wouldn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    ByronicHero would you not split the right wing vote|?
    We don't use first past the post


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I don't have any issue with private roads in general, but I do think that where geographical realities create natural monopolies the state should intervene to restrict the inherent ill effects on those who have to regularly use those roads. I see no issue with locally mandated companies building and maintaining roads in line with local desires, and to an extent accept that businesses would be incentivised to support their upkeep. It would also possibly lead to people not making unnecessary car journeys which would be grand.

    in the mean time I will happily use government roads because I have already paid a great deal of tax in my relatively short life and thus consider myself to have paid for them - and plenty that I will never use :lol:



    I believe you, thousands wouldn't.
    We are in total agreement on this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    We don't use first past the post

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They still take votes that would otherwise have been Tory, Liberal or Kipper.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    You can do dual membership?
    Come on , we actually have a chance of government!
    Duel membership requires all party leaders involved to sign off. I would hope that Mobbsy would oppose such an idea.

    Not least because capitalists and libertarians should surely believe that one should fight or die on their own merit (see what i did there) .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Create another party. The Illiberal Authoritarians
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    They still take votes that would otherwise have been Tory, Liberal or Kipper.
    I see no problem with that, nobody loses seats. There's no point in having people who are essentially libertarian spread across three parties.

    There's also no sense in having blind loyalty to the Tories when the alternative has the potential to succeed
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    I see no problem with that, nobody loses seats. There's no point in having people who are essentially libertarian spread across three parties.

    There's also no sense in having blind loyalty to the Tories when the alternative has the potential to succeed
    The right may not lose seats but clearly the Tories do. That 25% of the vote would have been 30% (i.e. 2 of our would be seats go Liber).

    The point is that the Libers have existed before and have failed as a party (i even joined for a few months to aid them) and the reason it failed was not because of especially poor party management or because libertarianism was unpopular but rather because most people on TSR who identify as libertarian were perfectly happy to join a Tory or Liberal Party that on many issues put forward libertarian leglislation.

    The Libers died because they lacked new membership on a sufficient scale and unless Mobbsy and Petros decide that they will leave potential assets alone, i see no reason why this time would be much different.

    Now if Paddy were to ban dual membership and there were 5 or so current MP's willing to jump (he and J&T are a decent start) then i'd have a warmer attitude were they to set themselves some 3 month goals and essentially thrive or die.

    What is being proposed now is a party dependent on people with no loyalty to it having only 2 real assets that it will own and a poor history.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    That's very selfish Rakas, the house is lacking a distinct voice for right wing libertarians as it is; the liberals COULD go that way if Petros becomes Speaker and the Leadership Election following has a favourable result, but that's unlikely.

    Putting your own party above the house's health and membership numbers; its something I'd expect from Labour, not you.
    lol @ libertarians bemoaning selfishness

    @OP, I don't see how a points-based immigration system is remotely liberal - clearly the denial of benefits to new immigrants fits in with the overarching structure, but anything but a move towards open borders is anti-liberal and completely at odds with libertarianism.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    lol @ libertarians bemoaning selfishness

    @OP, I don't see how a points-based immigration system is remotely liberal - clearly the denial of benefits to new immigrants fits in with the overarching structure, but anything but a move towards open borders is anti-liberal and completely at odds with libertarianism.
    Hi,

    I broadly agree. It is a pragmatic reaction to the current state of play. I think a few ducks need to be in a row before completely open borders makes sense. I probably should have outlined all policies as they would ideally stand as part of a theoretical composite whole, but the OP was meant as a flavour of the party more than a manifesto, as the latter will be the decision of the whole party.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    That's very selfish Rakas, the house is lacking a distinct voice for right wing libertarians as it is; the liberals COULD go that way if Petros becomes Speaker and the Leadership Election following has a favourable result, but that's unlikely.

    Putting your own party above the house's health and membership numbers; its something I'd expect from Labour, not you.
    This is moronic bordering on the offensive. You'd 'expect it from Labour'?? Why on earth would you - except for the fact you're a pseudo-tory and apparently right-wingers are always thinking about others and wouldn't ever be 'very selfish'. :rolleyes: I'll have you know I and other Labour members personally intervened in keeping the TSR Green Party afloat - even lifting my personal policy against dual-memberships to help them and am even offering MP positions to Socialist Party members as they have active people who don't have a seat but want one (though we have more members that seats). That means members of my party are actively helping others in the House - parties that people who might otherwise vote for Labour, vote for. That's a very deliberate policy of collaboration based on the idea that the Model House of Commons is a more interesting place when there's more distinctive parties. As Speaker I approved the formation of a new Party - the first Speaker to do so in some time - and though it was an apolitical decision I was obviously aware of the fact they would pitch themselves as centre-left. Rakas has always, vehemently supported what's essentially a two-party system or more accurately 'the Tories vs the Left'. Stop ignorantly spouting stuff about my party.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The right may not lose seats but clearly the Tories do. That 25% of the vote would have been 30% (i.e. 2 of our would be seats go Liber).

    The point is that the Libers have existed before and have failed as a party (i even joined for a few months to aid them) and the reason it failed was not because of especially poor party management or because libertarianism was unpopular but rather because most people on TSR who identify as libertarian were perfectly happy to join a Tory or Liberal Party that on many issues put forward libertarian leglislation.

    The Libers died because they lacked new membership on a sufficient scale and unless Mobbsy and Petros decide that they will leave potential assets alone, i see no reason why this time would be much different.

    Now if Paddy were to ban dual membership and there were 5 or so current MP's willing to jump (he and J&T are a decent start) then i'd have a warmer attitude were they to set themselves some 3 month goals and essentially thrive or die.

    What is being proposed now is a party dependent on people with no loyalty to it having only 2 real assets that it will own and a poor history.
    Some pretty useful assets though.

    There was a time when me, J&T and Adorno constituted a good 80% of the relevant activity in the HOC. I could write and submit more legislation in a couple of days than some parties will this whole term.

    Other members who have pledged their support have also shown that they are willing to be active, though I do agree with you that at some point I will need to discuss with party leaders their attitude towards dual memberships.

    Out of interest, do you think the Greens should be removed? How about the Socialists? Ukip?

    There always have been, are, and always will be parties which are powered mostly by a few key members.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, I'm back in the game.

    Any questions - I'm here.

    Within a day of proposing this we have various active members interested and have already submitted a bill.

    Come join the best darn party in town :moon:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Any questions - I'm here.
    I would be interested to know your answer to this question. If say there is a TSR member with Liberal views who is unsure who to vote for at a General Election, why should they vote for your party instead of the Liberal Party?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Okay, I'm back in the game.

    Any questions - I'm here.

    Within a day of proposing this we have various active members interested and have already submitted a bill.

    Come join the best darn party in town :moon:
    I was thinking and am curious: what would be the limits of your admissions policy? Would you accept lefties with libertarian views as well?
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I would be interested to know your answer to this question. If say there is a TSR member with Liberal views who is unsure who to vote for at a General Election, why should they vote for your party instead of the Liberal Party?
    It would depend on the nature of the party at the time, but generally this answer is the same as why we are different at all. We have a much more pronounced commitment to individual freedoms and state-reduction. Some Liberals share this commitment, but because large numbers of their members are politically opposed to even quite moderate economically liberal actions their policies will always be tempered by that group. Somebody who is choosing between the two of us has to decide how strong their convictions are, and whether they want to support a cohesive party of one that will always be hampered by its need to placate and mollify its moderate, centrist members.


    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    I was thinking and am curious: what would be the limits of your admissions policy? Would you accept lefties with libertarian views as well?
    It's hard to say. This is something that would be decided by the founding members. My instinct as a party leader was always to empower people to decide which party best suits their politics at the first instance, and then to react accordingly if it didn't seem like a good fit. I think it is unlikely for example that anarcho-syndicalists, or libertarian socialists in general, would have more in common with our members than those of the Socs and thus would be better placed elsewhere. However, If somebody feels that they can support the kinds of policies we are advocating, or otherwise add something to the discourse, they will be welcome.

    The party will also develop over time. Its identity won't be static. As things change, attitudes to admission change with them. The above is my initial instinct though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    I was thinking and am curious: what would be the limits of your admissions policy? Would you accept lefties with libertarian views as well?
    If this party gets off its feet, the most likely to join based on who I've seen comment here are free market capitalists. Thus, a manifesto would be produced that wouldn't suit libertarian-socialists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    This is about the 40th reincarnation of the Libertarian Party in about 12 months. I was apart of one a couple of months ago, it fell apart before it even came together.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by similarBlank)
    This is about the 40th reincarnation of the Libertarian Party in about 12 months. I was apart of one a couple of months ago, it fell apart before it even came together.
    Indeed, but I wasn't a part of that one.

    As long as we have the numbers we will form, and I will make sure that everything necessary is in place for the next election. This won't be the first time I have given life to a dead party so I know what needs to happen and when.

    Your evident annoyance at the previous failures aside, would you like to join?

    (Also, is that Yu-Gi-Oh in your avatar?)
 
 
 
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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.