[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
2009/6/16 Mike Martin <redtux1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 2009/6/16 Ralph Smithen <ralphsmithen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> 2009/6/16 Benjamin M. A'Lee <bma-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Libertarianism seems to consist of the belief that if everybody is just >>> left to get along with things, and the government does as little as >>> possible to regulate things and balance everything out, it’ll work out >>> well for everybody and nobody will get screwed over. >> >> Libertarians don't believe the government should "balance things out" >> if by that you mean redistribution of wealth. The role of a >> libertarian state is primarily to protects the rights of individuals >> and to ensure the rule of law. >> >> How do you see people being screwed over under Libertarianism? Perhaps >> if you provide a concrete example, I can discuss with you the >> implications of their policies :) >> >> I take it you haven't read the party's manifesto. >> http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto.php > > Unfortunately I have Thanks for taking the time :) > 1. Anyone who starts off by quoting Milton Friedman, the inspiration > behind Thatchers decimation of this country is in looney tune land Ad hominems are not very persuasive to me :/ Here's the quote to which you refer: "I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, 'How do you hold down government spending?' Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes." — Milton Friedman Now I must somewhat shame-facedly admit that I've only read a couple of articles by Friedman, so I don't claim to support him in all things, but this quote seems to stand on its own merit - that is, unless you claim that government spending is the most efficient possible use of our money (including the 175 billion pounds they pass to their mates on QUANGOs each year?). Friedman may have been used as a rationalisation for Thatcherism, and the collection of similar policies introduced in America at the same time as Reagonomics (though of course only coincidentally and not as part of a greater scheme), but the reality was far from his ideals. The world has never seen a truly free market. > 2. "Protecting the rights of Individuals" is meaningless, without > regulation. It is all about who society is weighted in favour of. What do you mean by regulation? Protecting people's rights is covered as a part of enforcing the rule of law. Regulation smacks to me of laws coming straight from the EU (as around 80% of new statutes do these days) dictating that I can't buy brazil nuts in shells, or that I must use light bulbs which are less efficient when switched on and off regularly and that release mercury vapour when broken. It's about who society's weighted in favour of, or rather, as I'd put it, it's all about how systems are incentivised. > 3. Individuals is a meaningless concept. All individuals are part of > larger groupings with which they have common interests Wrong way round! Individuals are primary - I can point them out. Groups are abstractions that *should not* be afforded rights that trump those of individuals. Show me a group and I'll show you a collection of individuals. > 4. Loads of clauses anti-foreigner, anti-welfare state inc Health > service. (BTW the welfare state was not not designed as a bare minimum > safety net) Could you provide me an anti-foreigner quote? I know the welfare state, which has not been around very long, was not designed to be a bare minimum safety net. It's designed to grow and grow until the state is our all-mother, all-father and we are all landless serfs working for the state-corporate combine. This is not my ideal societal system. The LP policies aim at reform of the welfare system, to ease us from dependency and provide service that is responsive to individuals' needs. > 5. Most of the failings of "Big Government" can be laid at the door of > governments subservience to the intersts of big business and this > would certainly not change in a libertarian state which would > accentuate the power differences in society It seems to me that their policies of limiting donations to individuals, adopting the framework on lobbying of the Alliance For Lobbying Transparency, and increasing the cooling off period to prevent the "revolving doors" between state and corporations would significantly restrict the influence of big business. http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/constitutional.php Big business is aided and abetted, and indeed simply couldn't continue to squeeze the poorest sectors of society, without the help of government. The wealthiest ruling families, the ones that have their money in international financial institutions and tax-exempt foundations, love socialism! -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html