Libertarian Party Uk

[nino_savatte]

I see GMart's joined the thread. I hereby declare this thread a disaster area.

Move along...there's nothing here to see.

 

[Rod Sleeves]

nope. have a laugh at early QT on BBC1

?

 

[tangentlama]

anarchos and chaos are two greek words. neither mean the same thing.

 

[Gmart]

So you quote something which contradicts your view, yet still persist in your view?

That's quite weird y'know.

Not really, I was merely pointing out that even on the anarchist faq's it is stated that anarchists are concerned with coercion and localisation, exactly the same as any other political party. I just wish that they would stop trying so hard to disassociate from the mainstream and recognise that though they call themselves 'anarchists' they are really just the same as anyone else. And again I would suggest that they decide whether they trust the people and join the Liberal Party, or whether they don't and join the Conservatives.

 

[butchersapron]

You just said anarchists weren't concerned with that stuff though.

 

[Blagsta]

Not really, I was merely pointing out that even on the anarchist faq's it is stated that anarchists are concerned with coercion and localisation, exactly the same as any other political party. I just wish that they would stop trying so hard to disassociate from the mainstream and recognise that though they call themselves 'anarchists' they are really just the same as anyone else. And again I would suggest that they decide whether they trust the people and join the Liberal Party, or whether they don't and join the Conservatives.

errr...I don't know how to respond to this.

*baffled*

 

[butchersapron]

Laughter, i think.

 

[rekil]

Eh? What makes you think anarchism means no laws?

Btw, as butchers pointed out, the libertarian party are not the liberal party. They don't put freedom first for everyone, only for people with property. Hence them not actually being libertarian.

I've just seen an Ayn Rand fan on another board claiming to be an anarchist and arguing for the privatisation of lamp posts. It would prevent vandalism apparently.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've just seen an Ayn Rand fan on another board claiming to be an anarchist and arguing for the privatisation of lamp posts. It would prevent vandalism apparently.

Thus proving that Ayn Rand fans are, to a man (and they're almost always men), nuttier than squirrel shit.

 

[ExtraRefined]

I've just seen an Ayn Rand fan on another board claiming to be an anarchist and arguing for the privatisation of lamp posts. It would prevent vandalism apparently.

Just lamposts, pffft, lightweight. Hardcore libertarians will argue for the privatisation of roads. And the police, army and judiciary of course.

 

[rekil]

Just lamposts, pffft, lightweight. Hardcore libertarians will argue for the privatisation of roads. And the police, army and judiciary of course.

Well he did say something about privatising everything but he seemed most particular about the lamp posts. Most particular. I think Rand said that the police army and courts should remain in control of the state actually. Is that the default "libertarian" line? Fuck knows, wouldn't surprise me though.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You're not hanging anyone off that without a subscription. We do a one-day for five quid; more than three oligarchs will cost you an extra ten though.

 

[Blagsta]

I've just seen an Ayn Rand fan on another board claiming to be an anarchist and arguing for the privatisation of lamp posts. It would prevent vandalism apparently.

Someone on a board I used to frequent claimed that trees were capitalist.

 

[rekil]

Someone on a board I used to frequent claimed that trees were capitalist.

That is a good one.

 

[Blagsta]

That is a good one.

He used to go on about the "Freeman of the land" crap as well.

 

[ExtraRefined]

Is that the default "libertarian" line? Fuck knows, wouldn't surprise me though.

Very few would seriously argue for the privatisation of the army and judiciary. There are serious difficulties with privatising the army and roads.

Privatising all schools is however LPUK policy.

 

[Gmart]

Very few would seriously argue for the privatisation of the army and judiciary. There are serious difficulties with privatising the army and roads.

Privatising all schools is however LPUK policy.

Agreed - though it could be argued that it is the education system which perpetuates the class system to a great degree - so any attempt to put all schools on an equal footing would be worth the discussion.

I would hope that we are still able to consider the improvement of existing systems.

 

[Blagsta]

Agreed - though it could be argued that it is the education system which perpetuates the class system to a great degree - so any attempt to put all schools on an equal footing would be worth the discussion.

I would hope that we are still able to consider the improvement of existing systems.

No it couldn't. What perpetuates the class system is some people owning capital and others owning nothing.

 

[untethered]

Agreed - though it could be argued that it is the education system which perpetuates the class system to a great degree - so any attempt to put all schools on an equal footing would be worth the discussion.

There was a time when the education system was considered to be -- and arguably was -- an agent of social mobility.

State schools should all be given the same amount of money per pupil but be entirely free to spend it how they wish.

 

[Combustible]

Well he did say something about privatising everything but he seemed most particular about the lamp posts. Most particular. I think Rand said that the police army and courts should remain in control of the state actually. Is that the default "libertarian" line? Fuck knows, wouldn't surprise me though.

I thought Ayn Rand fell out with mainstream libertarians. Something to do with them not glorifying selfishness to the necessary degree.

 

[Gmart]

No it couldn't. What perpetuates the class system is some people owning capital and others owning nothing.

Truly Blagsta, you let your agenda dictate what you say, rather than logic. It should be obvious that the education system we have maintains the divide between the rich and poor at least to a certain degree - but your reluctance to agree with me even to a small degree prevents you from being honest.

So in this case I agree that your factor also affects it, because it is true and even tho I am reluctant to agree with you because of the bullsh*t you often come out with, honesty means that I must agree.

At the moment, two identically intelligent kids, one from a poor background and one from a rich one would not necessarily both succeed. The odds are stacked in favour of the rich kid. Any attempt to improve this system towards more of a meritocracy gets my vote.

And owning capital is also 'unfair', but people value houses; and property rights are a part of life - one could argue for a more equitable land tax system (see here for the thread), and inheritance tax reform but people are not going to stop buying and selling houses and so all we can do is make the system as fair as possible.

 

[Blagsta]

Truly Blagsta, you let your agenda dictate what you say, rather than logic. It should be obvious that the education system we have maintains the divide between the rich and poor at least to a certain degree - but your reluctance to agree with me even to a small degree prevents you from being honest.

So in this case I agree that your factor also affects it, because it is true and even tho I am reluctant to agree with you because of the bullsh*t you often come out with, honesty means that I must agree.

At the moment, two identically intelligent kids, one from a poor background and one from a rich one would not necessarily both succeed. The odds are stacked in favour of the rich kid. Any attempt to improve this system towards more of a meritocracy gets my vote.

And owning capital is also 'unfair', but people value houses; and property rights are a part of life - one could argue for a more equitable land tax system (see here for the thread), and inheritance tax reform but people are not going to stop buying and selling houses and so all we can do is make the system as fair as possible.

You're gonna have to expand on that. You saying that capitalist private property is "natural"?

 

[nino_savatte]

"Value" is a rather interesting word and like "culture", it's often misused or conscripted to serve an ideological master.

 

[DownwardDog]

That is a good one.

Rush proved it on side 1, track 3 of the Hemispheres album.

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're not hanging anyone off that without a subscription. We do a one-day for five quid; more than three oligarchs will cost you an extra ten though.

TO cover wear and tear on the lamp-post, natch.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Rush proved it on side 1, track 3 of the Hemispheres album.

Ah, Rush, no surprises there.

 

[Gmart]

You're gonna have to expand on that. You saying that capitalist private property is "natural"?

I wouldn't use the word 'natural' (as I am aware of its meaning), but it is a fact that people want and will vote for the right to have a safe place to sleep for they and their family at night. It is also an effective pension. Owning land is as old as Moses and any party which thinks even for a minute that it can get rid of such a basic right would be IMO considering electoral annihilation.

Once you recognise that people have basic property rights, it is only a short step from there towards using your property as collateral.

As I described in the thread I linked, there is scope for taxing the ownership of land more effectively.

 

[Blagsta]

I don't think you quite understand what I mean by "private property" in this context. I don't mean personal possessions. I mean property that is capital, i.e. it can be used to derive surplus value.

 

[Combustible]

Rush proved it on side 1, track 3 of the Hemispheres album.

But surely the maples were decidedly not capitalist.

 

[Gmart]

I don't think you quite understand what I mean by "private property" in this context. I don't mean personal possessions. I mean property that is capital, i.e. it can be used to derive surplus value.

Personal possessions ARE property. Why would it be different?

Are you suggesting that there are certain things which are not to be for sale?