Libertarian Ideas

[Danny]

Do you really think we can massively reduce say oil consumption without affecting the current economic system? Lots of people would love to know how.

Lots of people would like to know how you can get elected on a platform of less economic growth. If you reduce the economy, how do you stop it growing big again? Are you argueing the government spends massive quantites of energy stopping economic growth? What about the poverty that would cause? Where do you propose we get the money to research renewable energy?
I believe we can, with money and committment, phase out oil. Breakthroughs are being made all the time, hybrids are starting to catch on in America for example. What is needed is a sensible programme.

[Danny]

Look, I'll tell you what I think and you tell me what you think, not the other way around.

I'm not the first person to point out that if work was so great the rich would have kept more of it for themselves.

Also they wouldn't have to pay you to do it.

Firstly, the rich do work hard. Granted some earn it through luck, but the majority earn it through their own blood and sweat.
Work is promoted by wages and low taxation, which if at a certain level, exceed the negetive aspects of working. Your scheme will upset this balance, and so damage us negetively.

[mjcoughlan]

And if the rich do earn their money through luck then more power to them. Unfortunately the begrudgers we have in this country show a general disdain towards wealth and wealthy people.

[Crank]

Jesus Christ, mjc, did you read a thing I wrote. Come up with a good defence of private property before youn try defend the existence of rich and poor

[ThirdWay001]

When one of you raving lefties has a soloution to the problem us in the centre and those in the right are happy to listen.

So far your soloutions have been a disaster in every country.

We need a new approch to poverty here, instead of blaming people for it and trying to start class wars that will never actually happen.....I hate hearing "ordinary working class this and ordinary working class that" from people like Joe Higgins.


Let me tell ya from someone who is working class, we do not single handidly create the wealth of society, the workers and employers both do alot of work and while I'd avdvocate leveling the playing field a little, trying to put all the economic power into the class that traditinally does NOT show enterprise or actually SET UP business and ideas...is not a great idea.

[Edited on 30/12/2004 by ThirdWay001]

[mjcoughlan]

Jesus Christ, mjc, did you read a thing I wrote.

No.

Come up with a good defence of private property before youn try defend the existence of rich and poor

Rich and poor exist in free countries because freedom and merit go hand in hand. People respond differently to opportunities. Some are left behind, but the great majority of people in Ireland have good living standards.

[Crank]

I hate hearing "ordinary working class this and ordinary working class that" from people like Joe Higgins.

so do I

Let me tell ya from someone who is working class, we do not single handidly create the wealth of society, the workers and employers both do alot of work and while I'd avdvocate leveling the playing field a little, trying to put all the economic power into the class that traditinally does NOT show enterprise or actually SET UP business and ideas...is not a great idea.

How is what you're saying out of keeping with the Cohen model I mentioned? Wealth ain't a zero sum game, to be sure, but it's patently obvious where the bulk of it goes. Also, I don't see how a system where a handful of corporations could consume everything in sight best exemplifies the spirit of competition and enterprise.

So far your soloutions have been a disaster in every country.

Elaborate please. Privatisation of Russia's oil industry, Britain's railroads, Ireland's communications industry and part-privatisation of Britain's NHS ("a real piece of socialism and a real piece of Christianity" - Aneurin Bevan) have been a disaster. The closest any country has ever come to a truly laissez-faire system was Victorian Britain, the result: increased immiseration of workers, delayed response to the Irish famine, growing demand for socialism.

[Danny]

Elaborate please. Privatisation of Russia's oil industry, Britain's railroads, Ireland's communications industry and part-privatisation of Britain's NHS ("a real piece of socialism and a real piece of Christianity" - Aneurin Bevan) have been a disaster. The closest any country has ever come to a truly laissez-faire system was Victorian Britain, the result: increased immiseration of workers, delayed response to the Irish famine, growing demand for socialism.

You seem to be attacking right wing economics more then defending those in the left. A good example of successful welfare-state capitalism would be post-war Germany, the question is what happened to it? The answer is a collapse in birth rates, and a military. So what can we learn from that? Jack up child support and trim the military.

[JimLarkin]

Rich and poor exist in free countries because freedom and merit go hand in hand. People respond differently to opportunities. Some are left behind, but the great majority of people in Ireland have good living standards.

Unfortuantley that utopian view of freedom and meritocracy is only valid if everyone has the same start in life. Not everyone is rich or poor because of merit, some people were born into a life of wealth, and were fortuante enough to inherit their daddys estate and business, whereas others wh are born of poor parents don`t have much of a chance. Social mobility is when a person is able to migrate from one class to another, in a society, with little or no social protection there are few opportunities example a child from a poor background needs a decent meal in order to be able to perform properly not an economic incentive, in order to be able to put himself or herself through college and become a doctor he or she needs a decent grant, not an economic incentive. America a country with little or no social protection has low social mobility, in sweeden a country with advanced social protections the rate of social mobility is 10 times higher. Social protections help people to help themselves, and its despicable that liberterians stigmatise these people as spongers. Ive mentioned this on another thread, but i it is clear from history that leaving people behind causes a massive brain drain and waste of human potential furthermore it impeded social and economic progress. The liberterian idea, that a poor welfare service encorages merit and opportunity is flawed even by its own narrow definitions.

[earthfirst]

Let me tell ya from someone who is working class, we do not single handidly create the wealth of society, the workers and employers both do alot of work and while I'd avdvocate leveling the playing field a little, trying to put all the economic power into the class that traditinally does NOT show enterprise or actually SET UP business and ideas...is not a great idea.

Have you any source to suggest that one class or another shows more enterprise, sets up more business etc.? (I have heard that 3rd level education reduces the likelihood of entrepreneurial activity, but don't have a source to hand.)