Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1



Image


About us:
Whilst the libertarian movement is a notable force in the United States, the United Kingdom is devoid of a significant movement for both economic liberalism and social liberalism. We serve as the most economically liberal party in the house, advocating for a radical reduction in taxes and enhancing civil liberties, freeing society from the shackles of big government.

Where our friends across the house fail to do so, we will be the party to fight for your natural rights, for your freedom and for your children to live in a better world, one of opportunity where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come above all else.


Join us:
Press the link and apply for the 'TSR Libertarian Party' user group. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them in this thread or to PM Mr T 999.

Leadership Team:
Leader: The Rt. Hon. Mr T 999 MP
Deputy Leader: The RT Hon. Jammy Duel MP

MPs:
Seat 47: Jammy Duel
Seat 48: Miss Maddie
Seat 49: Mr T 999
Seat 50: The Mogg


Latest manifesto:

Image
Last edited by Mr T 999; 2 months ago
5
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
From this point forward we will be using this as our Question Time thread. Our first year as a reformed party has been a difficult one but a fundamentally successful one, as we have firmly established ourselves in the house. Here's hoping for an even better year this time around.

-Saunders
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
What's the point in this? You could have just edited the old thread if you want to change things.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by mr T 999)
What's the point in this? You could have just edited the old thread if you want to change things.
The idea is that we're starting anew, moving on from the rough patch we have faced.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Alright.

Opinions on Bernie Sanders.

Opinions on open borders.

Opinions on diplomatic and social compromise.

Opinions on maintaining vital national institutions on the world stage.
Bernie Sanders is the opposite of what we stand for, he proposes increased state involvement with the economy and a move towards the Nordic model whilst we promote the opposite. Personally, I like the guy as someone of integrity but he is fundamentally an interventionist which goes against the libertarian ideal that economies and peoples perform best when they are freer from government. As a party we strive to do this by increasing choice in healthcare, lowering taxes etc.

Our members have differing views on immigration although the most common view in libertarian circles and my own is that it needs to be restricted in some form given the existence of the welfare state and the animosity some in other countries hold towards democratic values. We support an Australian points system of immigration (although some, including myself, support freer movement with the European Union and other similar regions and countries to ourselves) in which people need to prove that they can offer something rather than enjoy the benefits of our country without giving anything back. A measure I propose is a period in which those who migrate into the United Kingdom need to give back before they can be classed as a full citizen and enjoy the benefits our welfare system provides, although we would like the welfare system to be made smaller and smoother.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'social compromise' but we are a party of diplomacy, we fully support our involvement in both the United Nations and NATO as both organisations help join the world together for the common goals of fighting against tyranny and defending the independent nation state. We are inherently cautious and reluctant to support military action, with a majority of our members supporting involvement in the fight against ISIS and assistance in building back the states we have taken part in the wars of but an equal majority looking at the West's interventions in Iraq and Libya with disdain and horror. Those who are democratically elected can serve as allies of our own countries; organisations like ISIS cannot. The primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens and whilst defence is a legitimate role of the state, this country cannot be in a safe position if we help to extend bloodshed. To add to our support for independent nation states, we support the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union as we oppose the centralisation of power, its undemocratic structure and the beacon of big government it represents.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Seems mildly predatory, no?
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Seems mildly predatory, no?
Explain?
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
Simply, what rights do you guarantee your citizens?
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Simply, what rights do you guarantee your citizens?
Negative rights.
1
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
Social context, please?

Image
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Social context, please?

Image
I'm not too sure that's accurate as a lot of people who are identified as classical liberals such as Friedman would fit into the picture's definition of modern liberals. As a rule, our members want a smaller state but have varying ideas on how to do that, some are full minarchists whilst others support provisions for welfare, healthcare and education but want the current provisions to be made smaller.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
It is great to see that the party has a new question time thread - acts as a new start for the new term.

Here’s to a big libertarian win in the election.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Social context, please?

Image
I would say the party is a mix between minarchists and classical liberals - but do not take that chart as gospel - political ideology is a lot more nuanced than “you are X therefore you believe in Y.”
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Connor27)
It is great to see that the party has a new question time thread - acts as a new start for the new term.

Here’s to a big libertarian win in the election.
Hear, hear.
1
reply
adamantacademic
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
Could the Hon. Member assure the House that if handguns were to be legalised, there would be rigid regulations, identity checks and usage monitoring to prevent the damage the weaponry has caused to the USA, with over 10,000 homicides and 86% of firearm crime being committed with the gun in a single year, the threat is real?
It's very noble that the Hon. Member has sanctioned the defense of the Rohingya people as party policy however the cavalier attitude of Burmese authorities in response to these atrocities must be condemned on the basis of moral grounds, is he prepared to do that by minimising UK-Burmese ties to the extent that transfer of any military aid is ceased and if present cruelty persists the dissolution of embassies will be under serious consideration?
Furthermore if he was to assume Prime Ministerial Office will he call for the immediate cancellation of training regimes delivered to Burmese forces as a priority task?
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
Right. So, predatory.

You guys like history? Remember the New York fires, where uninsured houses were removed from society on the basis of the firefighter teams objecting to the owners not having insurance? Yeah, entire blocks burned while unpaid firefighters stood and watched.

In the fire, infrastructure was destroyed, and people became temporary vagrants. This impacted the fledgling New York economy on an unseen, but significant scale.

So again I ask, what assurances can the party give its citizens to mostly ensure their rights, to educate them for emerging techno-industrial markets, and permit they're competitive on a global stage?

Two additional words. Diplomacy, India.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by adamantacademic)
Could the Hon. Member assure the House that if handguns were to be legalised, there would be rigid regulations, identity checks and usage monitoring to prevent the damage the weaponry has caused to the USA, with over 10,000 homicides and 86% of firearm crime being committed with the gun in a single year, the threat is real?
It's very noble that the Hon. Member has sanctioned the defense of the Rohingya people as party policy however the cavalier attitude of Burmese authorities in response to these atrocities must be condemned on the basis of moral grounds, is he prepared to do that by minimising UK-Burmese ties to the extent that transfer of any military aid is ceased and if present cruelty persists the dissolution of embassies will be under serious consideration?
Furthermore if he was to assume Prime Ministerial Office will he call for the immediate cancellation of training regimes delivered to Burmese forces as a priority task?
With regard to gun ownership, see my comment on this thread. I understand that weapons are a divisive topic in liberal circles because some people see it as more important to be free from murder, but where something is prohibited there will always be a black market or a replacement; the United Kingdom seems exceptionally high rates of knife crime but also other forms of attacks such as acid attacks and the misuse of cars.

I believe that the nanny state causes people to live lives that are less fulfilled, although I understand that a level of regulation is necessary as a social contract to alleviate concerns. In legalising handguns and by extension shotguns and semi-automatic assault rifles in future, my personal view is that background checks and training should be necessary (to allow for the sort of outcomes seen in Switzerland) and that carrying should be restricted to your own property.

I appreciate your comments with regard to our stance on the Rohingya; where oppression exists we should not stand still and we need to join up with our partners in standing up against it. In government, I would fully be prepared to defend our policy in the fullest sense and would do so by taking the sort of actions suggested by yourself. It is important we work towards a solution and whilst I would not support military intervention, the interests of justice can be best served by diplomatic action and an end to military assistance and possibly embassies would be a helpful way of setting an example to our friends across the world.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Right. So, predatory.

You guys like history? Remember the New York fires, where uninsured houses were removed from society on the basis of the firefighter teams objecting to the owners not having insurance? Yeah, entire blocks burned while unpaid firefighters stood and watched.

In the fire, infrastructure was destroyed, and people became temporary vagrants. This impacted the fledgling New York economy on an unseen, but significant scale.

So again I ask, what assurances can the party give its citizens to mostly ensure their rights, to educate them for emerging techno-industrial markets, and permit they're competitive on a global stage?

Two additional words. Diplomacy, India.
You are very vague; I would prefer if you worded your questions in standard English and really explained exactly what you mean, a lot of this is guessing on my part because you are not really contextualising what you are asking.

I don’t recall advocating for a privatised fire service, the emergency services are generally supported by most minarchists as an essential public service; I think you are literalising that graph that you posted and assuming political ideology is holy writ (this only really applies to left wing marxists and anarcho-capitalists).

In reality; political ideology is nuanced and I think you really do not understand that fully.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
So, let's get practical, as your preference.

There are many studies which disprove the mathematical value of gun ownership as an outdated liberty.

I can go into the history if you like. It basically boils down to a musketman being on par with organized cavalry. Unfortunately technology since then has made personal liberty an instantly lethal affair under the wrong circumstances.

Everyone deserves liberty on the merit of limiting social unrest and by extension economic unrest.

Ideology doesn't need to be nuanced. It can be practical. That's why abstract thought has no place here.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Right. So, predatory.

You guys like history? Remember the New York fires, where uninsured houses were removed from society on the basis of the firefighter teams objecting to the owners not having insurance? Yeah, entire blocks burned while unpaid firefighters stood and watched.

In the fire, infrastructure was destroyed, and people became temporary vagrants. This impacted the fledgling New York economy on an unseen, but significant scale.

So again I ask, what assurances can the party give its citizens to mostly ensure their rights, to educate them for emerging techno-industrial markets, and permit they're competitive on a global stage?

Two additional words. Diplomacy, India.
You and me have a different definition of 'predatory'. The greatest predator of all in my eyes is the state, a collective organisation that - if in the wrong hands - has the capability of oppressing people unimaginably.

Your graph shows that it is only minarchists that oppose the state providing fire protection. I am of the view that the type of injustice you presented is something we must avoid, and that this is an area where the profit incentive would be inappropriate. However, there are ways that the fire services could be private but regulation could be in place to prevent situations like that.

Furthermore, it is not one I agree with but there is a case that a greater injustice is forcing others to pay for what they cannot afford. I disagree as, whilst I see taxes as a necessary evil that should be minimised, the protection of life is something that we all have an interest in. This is consistent with my view on healthcare; I believe that emergency care should remain free at the point of use, whilst other parts of the healthcare sector should be privatised.

We will ensure people's legitimate rights - negative rights - the rights that protect people from the oppression of the state. In the interests of preserving high living standards and working within a democratic system in which solutions must serve all parties, we believe that the state should entitle its citizens to help where it is essential, but not as a right. You cannot be free to do something as it will always infringe on another's freedoms (i.e. they are forced to provide taxation), and therefore rights can only be negative. I am a pragmatic libertarian and for that I am sometimes criticised for not being radical enough, but I want to see fiscal responsibility and a smaller state and the best way of doing that, consistent with high living standards for all, is an approach as described.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

How are you finding researching unis for 2021 entry?

I have been able to get all the information I need from online research (76)
18.72%
I have tried virtual events and found them useful (82)
20.2%
I have tried virtual events and did not find them useful (77)
18.97%
I would be interested in trying socially distanced or scaled down in person events (88)
21.67%
I want to but don't know where to start with researching unis for 2021 entry (41)
10.1%
I haven't started researching yet (42)
10.34%

Watched Threads

View All