SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 years ago
#21
Thanks, but please explain negative rights applicably?

Just some hypothetical examples, if you don't mind.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 years ago
#22
(Original post by SWCoffee)
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There are many studies which disprove the mathematical value of gun ownership as an outdated liberty.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.
And what is your point here exactly? We all support gun ownership and submitted a bill to legalise it in the UK last term.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 years ago
#23
My point should be clear. I'm inviting you to predict what consequences you bill has.

I want you to support your notion with evidence.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 years ago
#24
(Original post by SWCoffee)
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There are many studies which disprove the mathematical value of gun ownership as an outdated liberty.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.
My reply to this one is shorter, but I do not care for the mathematical value of gun ownership. I care that people can make more decisions than is currently the place and that there are less restrictions to them acting in a manner that is consensual. Some regulation and intervention is necessary because of the democratic system, but it should be seen as a necessary evil. It is not necessary to ban guns as shown by the Switzerland example.

(Original post by SWCoffee)
Thanks, but please explain negative rights applicably?

Just some hypothetical examples, if you don't mind.
"Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery."
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 years ago
#25
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Thanks, but please explain negative rights applicably?

Just some hypothetical examples, if you don't mind.
Negative rights can best be defined as “freedom FROM outside interference” as opposed to “freedom TO do things.”

The American constitution and Bill of Rights is a perfect example of negative rights being applied on a governmental level.

The philosopher and enlightenment era scientist John Locke is the father of the idea of negative rights and outlined it in his book “two treatises on civil government.”

Examples would be the right to vote, the right to be free from torture or inhumane treatment.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 years ago
#26
(Original post by SWCoffee)
My point should be clear. I'm inviting you to predict what consequences you bill has.

I want you to support your notion with evidence.
I linked this post earlier.
0
reply
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 years ago
#27
When do you plan on dissolving as a party and individually attempt to join the Liberals in a massive herd-like manner?
1
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 years ago
#28
I'd be interested in the Switzerland example, and learning about how that particular gun law affects the social order.

I'm not interested in the link because the given narrative is very slightly impermeable.

As for negative rights, these are merely entry-tier assurances. Did anyone ever consider a hypothetical country that, with open borders, has a social system which was so ethically comprehensive, it attracted immigrants from across the globe? A country so attractive and competitive in terms of living standard for laborers that progressive capitalists would be unable to refuse? Doing what rational capitals do -- get taxed in the most beneficial way possible, and putting this back into services?

Has anyone considered how governments are just enrobed coorperations? Both have patrons to be pleased: If a customer is unsatisfied, they simply leave.

I'm not sure I call this safe liberty.
0
reply
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 years ago
#29
(Original post by SWCoffee)
My point should be clear. I'm inviting you to predict what consequences you bill has.

I want you to support your notion with evidence.
If this is about guns then probably not what you're thinking. All gun legislation did to our country was prevent law abiding citizens from bearing arms. Crime rates have stayed relatively the same.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 years ago
#30
I trust the gun bill is sensible.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 years ago
#31
(Original post by Conceited)
When do you plan on dissolving as a party and individually attempt to join the Liberals in a massive herd-like manner?
Never. To the contrary, I was wondering when your party would realise that you are doomed to losing to us in the election, withdraw from it, endorse my party and individually beg to join us
1
reply
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 years ago
#32
(Original post by Saunders16)
Never. To the contrary, I was wondering when your party would realise that you are doomed to losing to us in the election, withdraw from it, endorse my party and individually beg to join us
Likewise. In any case, I'll persist with my enquiries xD.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 years ago
#33
Lol..

Here's an easy one, if you're still comfortable with debating me:

What makes you distinct from the liberals, and why should our civilians care?

Why shouldn't the parties be merged?

Where do your votes originate?

And most importantly, does your party have a uniform consensus?

I think not.
0
reply
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 years ago
#34
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Lol..

Here's an easy one, if you're still comfortable with debating me:

What makes you distinct from the liberals, and why should our civilians care?

Why shouldn't the parties be merged?

Where do your votes originate?

And most importantly, does your party have a uniform consensus?

I think not.
Is it necessary for everyone within the party to share the exact same beliefs? We as Libertarians in general advocate minimum state intervention and personal freedoms, hence us advocating for privatisation of certain sectors. The Liberals on the other hand derive their support from having the centre ground having a mix of left and right economic policies whilst also wanting social liberty. That’s quite the distinction in terms of ideology I think and definitely appeals to different people
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 years ago
#35
The necessity of being a party is cooperation. Mechanically, an individual has less chance of exacting change. Hence, parties exist to platform a common ground.

So, yes, it is necessary, by definition of purpose, for everyone within a party to share the same beliefs.

I contend that this party is actually a collection of hardline liberals and reactionaries.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 years ago
#36
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Lol..

Here's an easy one, if you're still comfortable with debating me:

What makes you distinct from the liberals, and why should our civilians care?

Why shouldn't the parties be merged?

Where do your votes originate?

And most importantly, does your party have a uniform consensus?

I think not.
Of course, I'm always happy to answer questions.

CountBrandenburg has answered very well although I would extend on that by saying that the difference is in their slogan: "Economically Sensible, Socially Liberal". This infers that economic liberalism is unsensible and highlights the key difference, which is that we are the party that support the most free of market economies. In that same sense, our differnce with the Conservative Party is that they are economically liberal, but socially 'sensible'. Their more moderate stances in both areas is why people should care about us, because we endorse a type of politics that is both increasingly important in times of the growing state and exceptionally under-represented. Our votes originate from people who would other identify with both parties, hence why we have a significant range of differing views.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 years ago
#37
I'm not interested in narrative. Please supply speculative evidence.

The people deserve proof, no?

As an aside, ever played Victoria 2? Very cool game. You can simulate your proposals and then get back to me.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 years ago
#38
(Original post by SWCoffee)
The necessity of being a party is cooperation. Mechanically, an individual has less chance of exacting change. Hence, parties exist to platform a common ground.

So, yes, it is necessary, by definition of purpose, for everyone within a party to share the same beliefs.

I contend that this party is actually a collection of hardline liberals and reactionaries.
As staunch individualists we believe the opposite, the power of one person's ideas is immense and it is voluntary exchange that can help them realise their dreams. That is what guides our politics and guides the way our party functions and is made up.


(Original post by SWCoffee)
I'm not interested in narrative. Please supply speculative evidence.

The people deserve proof, no?

As an aside, ever played Victoria 2? Very cool game. You can simulate your proposals and then get back to me.
The Liberals support nationalisation, extended regulation and state spending in certain areas. Whilst they disagreed with parts of it, they put their name to a Budget that would have doubled the deficit. The Conservatives don't support ideas such as drug legalisation and aren't as hardline on social issues as we are. That's the difference on policy.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 years ago
#39
I notice one of your exemplary points involves the Conservatives and drug policy as a comparative.

If I were willing to entertain this narrative, I would also be willing to believe, on an equally exemplary and hypothetical basis, there are members of other parties who also believe in radical drug reform. Assumedly, it's not uncommon policy.

Unfortunately, this compels me to believe that other Libertarian policies may reflect the nature of the party -- a mishmash of confused independents.

Are there any independent bodies of study who can vouch for your ideals? Or is science not in your assuredly libertarian budget?
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 years ago
#40
(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?
You didn’t stand in the GE?
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed