Libertarian Party Uk

[Louis MacNeice]

Quite, Blagsta believes you can separate out social freedom and economic freedom. So wouldn't see how freedoms are restricted when the tax man starts taking more and more of your spending power away at the petrol pump and deciding how it should be spent for you.

I'm yet to see any explanation of how the collectivist redistribution will occur without the creation of a massive bureaucracy underpinned by state prepared to use physical force or coercion to impose it's system.

Can you only act for the benefit of others under the threat of coercion, including physical force...I've called you a misanthrope before and it seems I was right.

Louis MacNeice

 

[kyser_soze]

Why bother? I banned myself from here for a while, but I just took to posting in the politics section of a physics forum I go to. I ended up having to argue everything right from first principles – freedom to act vs freedom not to be acted on, etc. It got tedious in the end. These were just mainstream US science geeks too. But they have completely unconsciously held prejudices that it is very hard to tackle.

AHHH, that's where you went

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I like twitter, but it's almost impossible to have a meaninful discussion on it. I'm not sure how much you can infer about "libertarians" based on a select experince of one or two either.

You fail to maintain meaningful discussion here, so maybe it's not twitter that's the problem.

Louis MacNeice

 

[kyser_soze]

Louis getting in a good 1-2 on moon there.

 

[moon23]

Can you only act for the benefit of others under the threat of coercion, including physical force...I've called you a misanthrope before and it seems I was right.

Louis MacNeice

Of course people often act for the benefit of each other. Right now I am looking after deliveries for my neighbour despite their being no benefit for myself. Demonstrating that people are capable of acting in mutual benefit is a bit different from attempting to base an entire economic system on the assumption they will always act in such mutual benefit.

There are plenty of instances where people would not be happy to hand over goods, products and resources for the greater good, when their personal best interest lies in retaining them. I don't base my ideology on a utopian vision of human nature, but that doesn't make me a misanthrope, it makes me a pragmatist.

 

[moon23]

You fail to maintain meaningful discussion here, so maybe it's not twitter that's the problem.

Louis MacNeice

Whereas you seem suited to one line put downs.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Right now I am looking after deliveries for my neighbour despite their being no benefit for myself.

Of course there is a benefit to yourself you retard.

 

[moon23]

Of course there is a benefit to yourself you retard.

Not at all, it's a very big carpet and it's very annoying taking up my hallway.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Not at all, it's a very big carpet and it's very annoying taking up my hallway.

There is still an overall benefit to you, as you well know even if only subconciously.

 

[Blagsta]

I like twitter, but it's almost impossible to have a meaninful discussion on it. I'm not sure how much you can infer about "libertarians" based on a select experince of one or two either.

When all someone can state in response to some considered statements about the nature of the individual, pointing out the work of Bowlby and Ainsworth on attachment with "I am not interested in the work of others. I am interested if you would FORCE me to work for the collective". I can safely conclude that they are a little bit cracked.

 

[Blagsta]

Quite, Blagsta believes you can separate out social freedom and economic freedom. So wouldn't see how freedoms are restricted when the tax man starts taking more and more of your spending power away at the petrol pump and deciding how it should be spent for you.

I'm yet to see any explanation of how the collectivist redistribution will occur without the creation of a massive bureaucracy underpinned by state prepared to use physical force or coercion to impose it's system.

Quite the opposite.

 

[Blagsta]

Whereas you seem suited to one line put downs.

well you have turned into a cunt

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm yet to see any explanation of how the collectivist redistribution will occur without the creation of a massive bureaucracy underpinned by state prepared to use physical force or coercion to impose it's system.

All states use physical force and coercion to impose their systems. Currently, we have that state power employed in the maintenance of the current system of private property, in which essential, limited resources are held in the hands of the few. Given the iniquity of that system, the effort, bureaucracy and expense of maintaining it is very high.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Of course people often act for the benefit of each other. Right now I am looking after deliveries for my neighbour despite their being no benefit for myself. Demonstrating that people are capable of acting in mutual benefit is a bit different from attempting to base an entire economic system on the assumption they will always act in such mutual benefit.

There are plenty of instances where people would not be happy to hand over goods, products and resources for the greater good, when their personal best interest lies in retaining them. I don't base my ideology on a utopian vision of human nature, but that doesn't make me a misanthrope, it makes me a pragmatist.

So you can be trusted to do it, just not other people...as I said misanthrope.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Whereas you seem suited to one line put downs.

If that is all it takes, then perhaps you should be trying a little harder.

Louis MacNeice

 

[claphamboy]

More details? Link?

I don’t have any link, it was just info I received from a reliable source that a certain ‘Investigation Officer for the Standards and Fitness to Practise Directorate at the General Medical Council’ is still investigating him.

This information came to me, and was a bit of a surprise TBH, because I was involved in exposing him as a quack on one of the swine flu threads a year or so ago, because 'we' found out he was subject to some sort of ‘suspension’ by the GMC at the time and I assume still is.

The details of which I can’t remember, but IIRC it involved strict restrictions on what work he could undertake as a doctor and much, if not all, of that could only be carried out under supervision.

 

[moon23]

When all someone can state in response to some considered statements about the nature of the individual, pointing out the work of Bowlby and Ainsworth on attachment with "I am not interested in the work of others. I am interested if you would FORCE me to work for the collective". I can safely conclude that they are a little bit cracked.

You might well be right that he is.

 

[moon23]

All states use physical force and coercion to impose their systems. Currently, we have that state power employed in the maintenance of the current system of private property, in which essential, limited resources are held in the hands of the few. Given the iniquity of that system, the effort, bureaucracy and expense of maintaining it is very high.

I agree that force is required for state to maintain the current big business model of pseudo-capitalism in which taxation is raised and given to a small group of corporations that benefit.

 

[moon23]

So you can be trusted to do it, just not other people...as I said misanthrope.

Louis MacNeice

It's not misanthropic to realise that some people abuse a system for their own benefit. You are living in a disney fairy tale if you think everyone will always do what is best for each other.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not misanthropic to realise that some people abuse a system for their own benefit. You are living in a disney fairy tale if you think everyone will always do what is best for each other.

Yes, but the way that the system is designed shapes that abuse. People are products of their environments. I doubt anyone on here believes in a Utopia. I certainly don't – human society will always be messy – but changing the pattern of ownership, giving everyone a genuine stake in what they do and where they live, will change behaviour.

The tricky part is working out how to do this bottom-up rather than top-down, working out how to get from here to there. But I have no doubt that in a more just world, people would act more justly towards each other, no doubt at all. They would do so for one very simple reason – because they would see that this is what is best for them.

We all already act in this kind of way in our own lives, whether towards friends or family, or in organisations or clubs that we belong to, wherever we feel that we have a stake. The first step towards any kind of progress has to be extending this into the world of work. And there's the rub. Who owns the factories, offices, etc? Generally speaking, not the people who work in them. That's the single biggest problem – a problem that would be likely to have an alien from another world rubbing her head with disbelief were she to visit Earth. Capitalism is wasteful and inefficient, and promotes inequality and alienation. It is a rotten way to do things, placing people at the service of money, and it shapes us in quite grotesque ways. Most of us have been had.

 

[Blagsta]

I agree that force is required for state to maintain the current big business model of pseudo-capitalism in which taxation is raised and given to a small group of corporations that benefit.

There is no pure capitalism that exists without a state! That's la la land.

 

[Blagsta]

It's not misanthropic to realise that some people abuse a system for their own benefit. You are living in a disney fairy tale if you think everyone will always do what is best for each other.

ironic

 

[DotCommunist]

Thing is, I actually approve of well manged for the people statist tyrannies of a benign communist nature. Moon would sell his birthright for a mess of pottage and call that freedom. Freedom as defined by who and articulated via mechanisms leaving me sayin 'hold on a minute'

There is no peace to be had from the peacemakers. There is no freedom, freedom is an irrelevant concept for us clever social apes.

 

[moon23]

There is no pure capitalism that exists without a state! That's la la land.

You confuse free market with capitalism. A free market would allow for forces such as organised labour to be expressed without the state intervening. A free market would be less 'capitalist' in some senses as it wouldn't have as many large corporations (that can only get so big with state protection).

 

[Kaka Tim]

Barnsley result is in moon.

Dont worry - your party managed to avoid being dumped into 3rd place.












Cos you came 6th and lost your deposit.

 

[Blagsta]

You confuse free market with capitalism. A free market would allow for forces such as organised labour to be expressed without the state intervening. A free market would be less 'capitalist' in some senses as it wouldn't have as many large corporations (that can only get so big with state protection).

la la land

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It's not misanthropic to realise that some people abuse a system for their own benefit. You are living in a disney fairy tale if you think everyone will always do what is best for each other.

1. Some people but not you of course.

2. 'Everyone' and 'always'; yes that's just what I said wasn't it?

Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

A free market would allow for forces such as organised labour to be expressed without the state intervening. A free market would be less 'capitalist' in some senses as it wouldn't have as many large corporations (that can only get so big with state protection).

Utter nonsense.

 

[rekil]

Where is he getting it from.

 

[DotCommunist]

whichever rancid minarchist ideolouge he's listening too this week