Discussion on right-libertarianism Watch

Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Hello everyone,

I just wanted to see what the general thoughts of UK-ish students were on right-libertarianism as a political philosophy?

Does anyone on TSR believe it is possible and politically practical? And if so, is it an ideal political viewpoint to aim towards?

Personally, I am a right-libertarian so I am eager to see how many others exist on TSR.
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Yes right Libertarianism is possible thatcher did it when she privatised public industries and I believe UKIP under Farage were economically Libertarian.
1
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by mr T 999)
Yes right Libertarianism is possible thatcher did it when she privatised public industries and I believe UKIP under Farage were economically Libertarian.
I agree, although I think the sticking point comes when combining that economic libertarianism with social libertarianism... let’s not forget that Thatcher was a staunch social conservative.
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Connor27)
Hello everyone,

I just wanted to see what the general thoughts of UK-ish students were on right-libertarianism as a political philosophy?

Does anyone on TSR believe it is possible and politically practical? And if so, is it an ideal political viewpoint to aim towards?

Personally, I am a right-libertarian so I am eager to see how many others exist on TSR.
I don’t agree with it, morally, philosophically nor practically.
1
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by JMR2018)
I don’t agree with it, morally, philosophically nor practically.
What are your reasons for these disagreements?
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Connor27)
What are your reasons for these disagreements?
Well their whole philosophy is based on the idea that we have no obligations to society, when clearly all the success anyone has achieved has been the result of not just themselves but other people too. Without certain obligations to society- society becomes inherently unfair and unstable.
As yes, if there was a right wing libertarian society there would be a whole chunk of the population who ironically would not be ‘free’ at all.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by JMR2018)
Well their whole philosophy is based on the idea that we have no obligations to society, when clearly all the success anyone has achieved has been the result of not just themselves but other people too. Without certain obligations to society- society becomes inherently unfair and unstable.
As yes, if there was a right wing libertarian society there would be a whole chunk of the population who ironically would not be ‘free’ at all.
The fact that mentioned fairness is interesting - surely any conception of fairness is completely arbitrary and therefore not meaningful as a point of debate? Fairness is not an absolute variable that can be quantified.

Libertarians do not argue that we necessarily have no obligations to each other; only that we have no obligations to the STATE, these two things should not be conflated... many libertarians support charity as a means of replacing welfare for example.

Therefore I believe that your two points, that “libertarians don’t care about others” and that a libertarian society would be “unfair” are unfounded and therefore false.
0
reply
Violet Femme
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
No, it's not practical.

It's like communism in that it appeals to a small minority of young people. In the case of libertarianism, it is typically middle class boys. But most of them mature and grow out of it as they gain some genuine life experience and a better understanding of political ideology.
5
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Violet Femme)
No, it's not practical.

It's like communism in that it appeals to a small minority of young people. In the case of libertarianism, it is typically middle class boys. But most of them mature and grow out of it as they gain some genuine life experience and a better understanding of political ideology.
I am a working class boy studying political ideology at degree level at one of the best academic institutes in the country, I’m also a proud libertarian - nice bait.
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Connor27)
The fact that mentioned fairness is interesting - surely any conception of fairness is completely arbitrary and therefore not meaningful as a point of debate? Fairness is not an absolute variable that can be quantified.

Libertarians do not argue that we necessarily have no obligations to each other; only that we have no obligations to the STATE, these two things should not be conflated... many libertarians support charity as a means of replacing welfare for example.

Therefore I believe that your two points, that “libertarians don’t care about others” and that a libertarian society would be “unfair” are unfounded and therefore false.
Do you believe people should have equality of opportunity- and if not, why not? Note this can only be done effectively by a state and organising a social contract that way.
Secondly, saying people should give to charity or that they can help people in their own way is not an obligation- it’s something which is voluntary.
0
reply
Violet Femme
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Connor27)
I am a working class boy studying political ideology at degree level at one of the best academic institutes in the country, I’m also a proud libertarian - nice bait.
If that is true, you'll have the knowledge to understand why libertarianism is a niche ideology and not politically practical without needing to ask other people.
1
reply
username4301878
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
The impracticality is that nobody really cares how "big" the government is, which is something you libertarians like to bring up all the time.

The free market has been the most progressive and disruptive force in history by means of free trade and open borders, which is a result of the free market's insatiable desire for cheap workers. There is a greater good than serving the interests of the GDP, internationalist moneymovers/corporations and that's something libertarians don't have an answer for. I'll only accept a "free market" when it is restrained by nationalism.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by JMR2018)
Do you believe people should have equality of opportunity- and if not, why not? Note this can only be done effectively by a state and organising a social contract that way.
Secondly, saying people should give to charity or that they can help people in their own way is not an obligation- it’s something which is voluntary.
I do believe that we should have equality of opportunity yes, but I disagree that the state is the only way to achieve that as I believe we all are a blank slate in the state of nature.

The social contract is a myth with no real basis behind it apart from a.) God (in the lockean version) b.) Absolute totalitarian government (in the Hobbesian version) or c.) assertions about “love” backed up by no evidence, facts or observations in the Rousseauian version.

A voluntary obligation does exist, look up the definition.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Ligma Balls)
The impracticality is that nobody really cares how "big" the government is, which is something you libertarians like to bring up all the time.

The free market has been the most progressive and disruptive force in history by means of free trade and open borders, which is a result of the free market's insatiable desire for cheap workers. There is a greater good than serving the interests of the GDP, internationalist moneymovers/corporations and that's something libertarians don't have an answer for. I'll only accept a "free market" when it is restrained by nationalism.
Free markets and nationalism are absolutely compatible. Not all human beings have the same time preference as Ludwig Von Mises wrote, which is why Somalia isn’t a libertarian paradise. In fact I would argue a presupposition of borders and nation states is absolutely required to achieve a libertarian society.
Last edited by Connor27; 1 year ago
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
Oppression by STATE = bad.

Oppression by corporate entity = good.

Right Libertarianism is an inherently and deliberately blinkered ideology.
1
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Connor27)
I do believe that we should have equality of opportunity yes, but I disagree that the state is the only way to achieve that as I believe we all are a blank slate in the state of nature.

The social contract is a myth with no real basis behind it apart from a.) God (in the lockean version) b.) Absolute totalitarian government (in the Hobbesian version) or c.) assertions about “love” backed up by no evidence, facts or observations in the Rousseauian version.

A voluntary obligation does exist, look up the definition.
I don’t understand what you mean we are all in a ‘blank state’ in a state of nature...
The very idea of an obligation is that you are required to do it.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by mojojojo101)
Oppression by STATE = bad.

Oppression by corporate entity = good.

Right Libertarianism is an inherently and deliberately blinkered ideology.
Except the power to make corporations bankrupt via competition is much more powerful than say, the power to change the civil service in Britain (which is non-existent for the average person.)
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by JMR2018)
I don’t understand what you mean we are all in a ‘blank state’ in a state of nature...
The very idea of an obligation is that you are required to do it.
The blank slate is one of John Locke’s key political ideas and I’m quite surprised that you have such a strong opinion on this topic without being familiar with the relevant literature:

“Tabula rasa (Latin for blank slate) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. Proponents of tabula rasa generally disagree with the doctrine of innatism which holds that the mind is born already in possession of certain knowledge. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa theory also favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, knowledge and sapience.”

Also you’re wrong on obligations, by definition it means you are OBLIGED to do it, (aka it’s the right thing to do) but no one is putting a gun to your head and saying you have to do it, people who refuse to honour their obligations are absolutely dicks but I strongly disagree with the principle that we should force obligations onto the unwilling.
Last edited by Connor27; 1 year ago
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Connor27)
The blank slate is one of John Locke’s key political ideas and I’m quite surprised that you have such a strong opinion on this topic without being familiar with the relevant literature:

“Tabula rasa (Latin for blank slate) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. Proponents of tabula rasa generally disagree with the doctrine of innatism which holds that the mind is born already in possession of certain knowledge. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa theory also favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, knowledge and sapience.”

Also you’re wrong on obligations, by definition it means you are OBLIGED to do it, (aka it’s the right thing to do) but no one is putting a gun to your head and saying you have to do it, people who refuse to honour their obligations are absolutely dicks but I strongly disagree with the principle that we should force obligations onto the unwilling.
I am well aware of John Locke’s idea of tabula rasa, but I’m not sure how this relates economically- we aren’t all economically or socially ‘blank slates’- some of us were born with more wealth, stability, prosperity etc.
This goes against the principle of equality of opportunity which you believe in. Furthermore, once you start letting free maket capitalism take hold these at first natural inequalities become much more profound. How can you defend this if you believe in equality of opportunity?

Secondly:Name:  0EC56289-19AA-436B-9292-404DB72D5F3F.jpeg
Views: 49
Size:  335.6 KB
0
reply
Alpha Economics
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
Libertarianism will never be politically viable in England. The idle masses are too attached to the state and lack the strength of character to be free
1
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 many uni open days have you been to/did you go to?

0 (71)
28.4%
1 (40)
16%
2 (40)
16%
3 (36)
14.4%
4 (17)
6.8%
5 (20)
8%
6 (6)
2.4%
7+ (20)
8%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed