username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 years ago
#41
(Original post by Saunders16)
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.
Nonsense. You're a terribly great fellow Saunders but when you spew bilge like this you don't do yourself justice.

If you actually read our manifesto you would see how we commit to balancing both social and economic liberalism. We advocate the abolition of unjustified tax and reduction, full drug legalisation that will better our economy whilst freeing the individual and commit to robust plans on these tenets. We go further than yourselves on healthcare and prisons. The former by commiting to improving the status quo within our health care system that would see citizens having the mechanism by which value for money can be sought. The latter by actually putting forward a sound plan on how to focus on rehabilitation.

We are the socially liberal party, we are the economically liberal party. We fill a gap within politics that you are not able to do so. We are the party for the 21st Century and this impression will be felt.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 years ago
#42
Gosh.

I don't know the man but he's quite polite.
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 years ago
#43
(Original post by conceited)
nonsense. You're a terribly great fellow saunders but when you spew bilge like this you don't do yourself justice.

If you actually read our manifesto you would see how we commit to balancing both social and economic liberalism. We advocate the abolition of unjustified tax and reduction, full drug legalisation that will better our economy whilst freeing the individual and commit to robust plans on these tenets. We go further than yourselves on healthcare and prisons. The former by commiting to improving the status quo within our health care system that would see citizens having the mechanism by which value for money can be sought. The latter by actually putting forward a sound plan on how to focus on rehabilitation.

We are the socially liberal party, we are the economically liberal party. We fill a gap within politics that you are not able to do so. We are the party for the 21st century and this impression will be felt.
hear hear!!!!
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 years ago
#44
(Original post by SWCoffee)
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?
The Liberals agree on drugs as we are both ideologically socially liberal, there is little difference there just as there is little difference with the Conservatives economically. We would be a mishmash of confused independents if we did not have a niche, which we quite clearly do. If you are interested in learning more about the case for libertarian thought I would guide you to the list of books in the first post; if you want to look at more academic study for our ideals then look at some libertarian/right-wing minded think-tanks like the Adam Smith Institute.


(Original post by Conceited)
Nonsense. You're a terribly great fellow Saunders but when you spew bilge like this you don't do yourself justice.

If you actually read our manifesto you would see how we commit to balancing both social and economic liberalism. We advocate the abolition of unjustified tax and reduction, full drug legalisation that will better our economy whilst freeing the individual and commit to robust plans on these tenets. We go further than yourselves on healthcare and prisons. The former by commiting to improving the status quo within our health care system that would see citizens having the mechanism by which value for money can be sought. The latter by actually putting forward a sound plan on how to focus on rehabilitation.

We are the socially liberal party, we are the economically liberal party. We fill a gap within politics that you are not able to do so. We are the party for the 21st Century and this impression will be felt.
You know I love you too but I fear you are misrepresenting what your party is in the hope of trying to marginalise my own; this will fail to succeed because the electorate will not choose a party that need to balance their polices and fulfill more of a centre ground that I know you and the right of your party disagree with because you have members to the left of the political spectrum. We would have put forward more detailed explanations of all our policies if we knew it was legal to link to a PDF, as would every other party so I will not and cannot accept any one of your criticisms in that area. It is undeniable that your on-site manifesto talks about nationalisation, regulation to pursue energy independence and free, universal school meals for students in primary school. All of these goals are perfectly noble if you explain them and the electorate should be left to judge what vision they prefer, but to claim this represents a shift to an economically liberal vision rather than an "economically sensible" one is laughably false.
0
reply
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 years ago
#45
(Original post by Conceited)
Nonsense. You're a terribly great fellow Saunders but when you spew bilge like this you don't do yourself justice.

If you actually read our manifesto you would see how we commit to balancing both social and economic liberalism. We advocate the abolition of unjustified tax and reduction, full drug legalisation that will better our economy whilst freeing the individual and commit to robust plans on these tenets. We go further than yourselves on healthcare and prisons. The former by commiting to improving the status quo within our health care system that would see citizens having the mechanism by which value for money can be sought. The latter by actually putting forward a sound plan on how to focus on rehabilitation.

We are the socially liberal party, we are the economically liberal party. We fill a gap within politics that you are not able to do so. We are the party for the 21st Century and this impression will be felt.
PRSOM
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 years ago
#46
(Original post by Saunders16)
The Liberals agree on drugs as we are both ideologically socially liberal, there is little difference there just as there is little difference with the Conservatives economically. We would be a mishmash of confused independents if we did not have a niche, which we quite clearly do. If you are interested in learning more about the case for libertarian thought I would guide you to the list of books in the first post; if you want to look at more academic study for our ideals then look at some libertarian/right-wing minded think-tanks like the Adam Smith Institute.




You know I love you too but I fear you are misrepresenting what your party is in the hope of trying to marginalise my own; this will fail to succeed because the electorate will not choose a party that need to balance their polices and fulfill more of a centre ground that I know you and the right of your party disagree with because you have members to the left of the political spectrum. We would have put forward more detailed explanations of all our policies if we knew it was legal to link to a PDF, as would every other party so I will not and cannot accept any one of your criticisms in that area. It is undeniable that your on-site manifesto talks about nationalisation, regulation to pursue energy independence and free, universal school meals for students in primary school. All of these goals are perfectly noble if you explain them and the electorate should be left to judge what vision they prefer, but to claim this represents a shift to an economically liberal vision rather than an "economically sensible" one is laughably false.
HEAAARRR!

The British people do not need wishy washy; unprincipled and opportunistic centrists masquerading as champions of the free market, the people do not forget that they have just left a coalition with the utopian communist extremists of the TSR Socialist Party.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 years ago
#47
(Original post by Connor27)
HEAAARRR!

The British people do not need wishy washy; unprincipled and opportunistic centrists masquerading as champions of the free market, the people do not forget that they have just left a coalition with the utopian communist extremists of the TSR Socialist Party.
PRSOM
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#48
Should have tagged in JD he would love the gun debate
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 years ago
#49
Let's be real. You guys don't earn enough taxes to pay for my retirement.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 years ago
#50
(Original post by mr T 999)
Should have tagged in JD he would love the gun debate
These days, he's too busy. You'd almost think he discovered the real world.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 years ago
#51
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Let's be real. You guys don't earn enough taxes to pay for my retirement.
This is ungrammatical nonsense. I assume you are a non-native English speaker (please forgive me if I am incorrect.)

It is incredibly difficult to partake in a high level debate on policy and philosophy when one’s opponent is barely literate. Please bear this in mind in future.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 years ago
#52
(Original post by Connor27)
This is ungrammatical nonsense. I assume you are a non-native English speaker (please forgive me if I am incorrect.)

It is incredibly difficult to partake in a high level debate on policy and philosophy when one’s opponent is barely literate. Please bear this in mind in future.
.. Really?

You ever study applicable linguistics? Or are you content in residence as a verified fossil?
1
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#53
(Original post by SWCoffee)
Let's be real. You guys don't earn enough taxes to pay for my retirement.
No of course we don't we are bunch of students playing a model parliament what did you expect?
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 years ago
#54
(Original post by SWCoffee)
.. Really?

You ever study applicable linguistics? Or are you content in residence as a verified fossil?
I assume you mean applied linguistics? I have actually but again, I fail to see the relevance of that concept here, if anything you are only demonstrating my assumption to be correct here.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 years ago
#55
(Original post by mr T 999)
No of course we don't we are bunch of students playing a model parliament what did you expect?
XD Stupid realists.


(Original post by Connor27)
I assume you mean applied linguistics? I have actually but again, I fail to see the relevance of that concept here, if anything you are only demonstrating my assumption to be correct here.
The entirety of your argument against my points is my perceived inability to make an argument. Unfortunately you are engaging in ad hominim and your narrative is a personal departure.

I suggest you stick to subjects people care about.
1
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 years ago
#56
(Original post by SWCoffee)
The entirety of your argument against my points is my perceived inability to make an argument. Unfortunately you are engaging in ad hominim and your narrative is a personal departure.

I suggest you stick to subjects people care about.
Ad Hominem arguments are not fallacious in se.
0
reply
SWCoffee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 years ago
#57
Only when they are a tangential distraction.
0
reply
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 years ago
#58
(Original post by Saunders16)
You know I love you too but I fear you are misrepresenting what your party is in the hope of trying to marginalise my own; this will fail to succeed because the electorate will not choose a party that need to balance their polices and fulfill more of a centre ground that I know you and the right of your party disagree with because you have members to the left of the political spectrum. We would have put forward more detailed explanations of all our policies if we knew it was legal to link to a PDF, as would every other party so I will not and cannot accept any one of your criticisms in that area. It is undeniable that your on-site manifesto talks about nationalisation, regulation to pursue energy independence and free, universal school meals for students in primary school. All of these goals are perfectly noble if you explain them and the electorate should be left to judge what vision they prefer, but to claim this represents a shift to an economically liberal vision rather than an "economically sensible" one is laughably false.
You fail to address my original comments. Perhaps I didn't convey myself appropriately with the most latter part of my response, but the premise still remains - yes, we commit to nationalising an entity. Yes, we commit to focusing on the diversification of our energy mix. And, yes, we commit to extending free school lunches. But, that does not hinder the fact that we commit to policies that could otherwise be described as embracing the market (and, as is the case with healthcare, achives that to a greater extent than yourself) and are actually thought out.
1
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 years ago
#59
(Original post by Conceited)
You fail to address my original comments. Perhaps I didn't convey myself appropriately with the most latter part of my response, but the premise still remains - yes, we commit to nationalising an entity. Yes, we commit to focusing on the diversification of our energy mix. And, yes, we commit to extending free school lunches. But, that does not hinder the fact that we commit to policies that could otherwise be described as embracing the market (and, as is the case with healthcare, achives that to a greater extent than yourself) and are actually thought out.
I'm not prepared to continue having this debate, the electorate will show their faith in our party to provide true economic liberalism rather than economic liberalism where it suits, but you cannot claim that you are an economically liberal party if you have a mix of policies and a big tent of members.
0
reply
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 years ago
#60
(Original post by Saunders16)
I'm not prepared to continue having this debate, the electorate will show their faith in our party to provide true economic liberalism rather than economic liberalism where it suits, but you cannot claim that you are an economically liberal party if you have a mix of policies and a big tent of members.
You don't understand the angle I am coming from. My point is that we embrace the free market in areas that you are not and provide robust plans to that end. That I would be embarresed if I were you as Leader of the Libertarian Party that has produced a manfesto that isn't bold enough.
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)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed