Given the word is French and is synonymous with Anarchist I think most people would disagree with the post Randian hi-jacking to describe people who could more accurately be called semilibertarian. That is they support some liberties and not others.(a Libertaire writes)
Libertarian Party Uk
- Thread starter Rohen
- Start date
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
So they've made a word mean it's opposite and they haven't re-written history.
Whatever you say Kyser.
But they haven't made a word seem it's opposite - it still means, to you, to DLR, to many/most/all leftists the same thing; broadening the context that a word can be used in is hardly re-writing history, altho it is instructive into where the lines of sacred and profane lie for you Blagsta.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
That's the ideal, sure. The Libertarian Party also have a manifesto. Anyone can write one.
When it occurs on a national level, and is sustained for a decent period, I'll get back to you.
What they're trying to impose on our behalf is the key. Even Labour aren't into full-blown collectivism. Give them time, I guess.
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
Azrael: I understand your mistrust of attempts at collectivised forms of social organisation, but this UKLib party is no way to go. They are nothing other than apologists for the current state capitalist system who have adopted faux-market, faux-liberty rhetoric in an attempt to disguise that fact. They wish to dismantle all those elements of the state that make the capitalist system bearable for the majority whilst at the same time maintaining the most destructive elements of it such as military-keynesianism, the state currency monopoly and intellectual property.
For a genuine left-libertarian market perspective I suggest you read some of the work of Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org), I particularly recommend his book 'Organisation Theory'. Don't let these right wingers confuse you.
For a genuine left-libertarian market perspective I suggest you read some of the work of Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org), I particularly recommend his book 'Organisation Theory'. Don't let these right wingers confuse you.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
Eh? "Even Labour"? Are you suggesting Labour is anything other than another post-Thatcherite neoliberal party?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
That's the ideal, sure. The Libertarian Party also have a manifesto. Anyone can write one.
When it occurs on a national level, and is sustained for a decent period, I'll get back to you.
Fair point. You still described representative democracy though.
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
The Libertarian Party believe in freedom from Government on all issues all of the time.
That is why they believe in a well funded Armed Forces. Hmmm Interesting. They want to stay with NATO, which is, effectivelly, a World Police Force. But rich people don't have to pay taxes. So, toffs such as George Osbourne and Dave Cameron can snort as much coke as they like, and shag loads of prostitutes, whilst everyone else is forced into line.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Never said they were. As I posted pages back, laissez faire fundamentalism isn't my thing. Even if it was, I've no interest in propping up the delusions of toy parties like UKLib.
A post-Thatcherite left-wing authoritarian party who think neoliberalism can be harnessed for left-wing ends. Now the economy has gone down the proverbial, goodness knows what economic model they'll lurch towards.
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
Fair enough, I mistook you for a supporter of this lot. By the way I'm not sure 'laissez faire fundamentalism' is their thing either. More like laissez faire when it suits the interests of capital. I think HarrisonSlade summed it up perfectly above.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Yes, well, fair point. Unregulated markets don't stay free for very long. I've got into long and tedious debates with right-wing "libertarians" before.
As I usually finish up saying: observe the drugs trade. Witness a totally free market, all ye "anarcho-capitalists", and despair!
As I usually finish up saying: observe the drugs trade. Witness a totally free market, all ye "anarcho-capitalists", and despair!
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
You misunderstand me. I do not agree with 'regulated markets', I believe that if the state did not 'regulate' the market in favour of capital as it does today, the possibility for expolitative exchange relationships to emerge would be next to zero. Anyway, since when has the drugs trade been a freee market?
Since the piss taking commenced I've had a read through their website, and I think (going from their material at any rate) you may be wrong on some of the above.
For example read their monetary policy:
http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/monetary-reform.php
They support a three tier currency system with free banking as a fundamental plank. That's a massive step away from the current model, and would allow local currencies, community banks/community money etc.
And with regards to defence:
Isn't that what the Swiss adhere to basically?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
It's not, that's the point: "anarcho-capitalists" have a habit of arguing that markets regulate themselves. They don't, of course. The drugs trade is totally unregulated, and look at what it ends up like.
How would you remove regulation in favour of capital, BTW?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Yeah, and it's plausible enough, but the Swiss largely adhere to it because they're a landlocked nation surrounded by major powers. Best means of survival.
Some of their site is perfectly sensible -- their law and order page is a lot better than the Lib Dem's craven abandonment of "24 hour habeas corpus" for two weeks in police lock-up without charge -- but there's the whiff of market fundamentalism hanging over it.
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
I was going on what they have to say on their manifesto overview page. For example:
"Our aim is to ensure a strong, independent, sovereign nation. This requires a well funded, trained and equipped professional Armed Forces (both full time and Reservist), geared for the defence of our nation and shipping."
"we will return the sovereignty of our national currency—pounds Sterling—to the Crown, with new Sterling being created, debt-free, by the government, and thence spent into the broader economy."
"The Rule of Law encompasses, amongst other things, property rights... ...Property rights are corporeal (your body), intellectual (your ideas, thoughts, beliefs), physical (possessions, land) and capital (your money or other financial assets)."
I admit I hadn't read as far as the three tier proposal being lazy as I am. However, with the state (or rather "crown" as they prefer to say) maintaining the right to issue a national fiat currency there is still the potential for exploitation to occur.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
What? A party that is privatising as muich as possible you think is about to lurch into full-blown collectivism? Such a ridiculous claim makes it hard to take anything to say seriously.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
There was just a hint of sarcasm in the observation.
Labout might be left-wing authoritarians with some dippy ideas about economics, but no, I don't think they have any interest in full-blown collectivism. They're keen to put the "rights" of the collective over the individual, but that's not the same thing.
Labout might be left-wing authoritarians with some dippy ideas about economics, but no, I don't think they have any interest in full-blown collectivism. They're keen to put the "rights" of the collective over the individual, but that's not the same thing.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
There was just a hint of sarcasm in the observation.
Labout might be left-wing authoritarians with some dippy ideas about economics, but no, I don't think they have any interest in collectivism. They're keen to put the "rights" of the collective over the individual, but that's not the same thing.
I'm assuming that's another 'hint of sarcasm' too?
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
I think we have different definitions of 'regulation'. The drugs trade, being that it is illegal, is regulated in its production, distribution and consumption. At all levels the drugs trade is regulated to the point where only criminals would be willing to engage in it. Effectively giving a monopoly to the unscrupulous.
As for the type of legislation that props up capital, I would put into this category patents, subsidies, tariffs, taxes that favour the rich, state transportation infrastructure, some of the 'health & safety' and environmental laws that do absolutely nothing to encourage health, safety or environmental sustainability.
All of these help raise the entry barriers of the marketplace so that independent labourers/small scale cooperatives are crowded out in favour of large capital. It is the distortion of markets that grants big business an artificial comparative advantage in efficiency and so causes them to proliferate.
The fact is though that Labour have tradionally been seen as the mainstream left, have been supported by the Unions and have traditonally had a working class socialist leaning base.
What they have become is a different matter, but I think is very easy to see why the Labour party are consider the left by the public.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Not a bit of it. Labour are authoritarian left. Admittedly their economic thinking -- the market can be harnessed to deliver left-wing ends -- is demented, but their preoccupations are those of the cultural left. 50% of school leavers railroaded into university, money thrown at the NHS, an ever-growing public sector, expansion of the EU's influence, punishing the (lower) middle class through the tax system, and so on.
Most strikingly, they're against selection by ability in our schools, continuing the thread begun by Crossland in The Future of Socialism.
Must say, the proposals -- abolition of tariffs, subsidies, abolition of certain health & safety laws -- sounds pretty laissez faire!
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
None of the above ie more money for the NHS etc is by definition 'Left'. After all; the same has been said by Cameron, as with the public sector. Increasing university entry is not by any definition 'Left', neither is the expoansion of the EU given that it's about making business easier and attacking workers rights.
You're flailing now.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Traditionally many things happened. Traditionally 'libertarianism' was a Leftist collectivist theory but Azrael thinks it's now equally applicable to anarcaps. Tradition means nothing in reality. Labour are not by any sensible or rational definition 'Left'.
As could any system of money issued by a single organisation. However if you read the section on banking, you'll see that with the other two methods in place that helps to negate the monoply over money production.
A single currency that can be accepted any where combined with local currencies/barter etc. makes sense imo.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Don't see how. The Cameron observation proves nothing: Mr Cameron is adopting all the right social democratic/cultural left clothes to grub himself some power, which is all the Conservative Party have cared about for decades. Since Harold Macmillan wrote The Middle Way, at least.
50% in university is egalitarianism if ever I saw it, ditto setting firm against academic selection in schools. (Mr Cameron capitulated here too with his attacks on grammar schools.) For all their nasty authoritarian law, and "tough" rhetoric, Labour have done nothing to increase punishment for most convicts, actually increasing early release. Even their "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" mantra accepts the left-wing idea that circumstances breed criminals.
All Labour have failed to do is run around nationalising everything in sight, which has been a dead-letter for decades. There's craftier ways to get what you want.
However that really makes no difference to the public perception of them though I think. They are certainly a neo-liberal party, however they still use the trappings of the left, and still have the support of sections of the left/those who support the left/socialist values.
However as pointed out though on this thread, it has been co-opted into the laissez-faire pov and become a term to describe them. Certainly in the US the majority of people will associate Libertarianism with Bob Barr/The Libertarian Party/Ron Paul and they are on the economic right.
I've read some Rand and can't remember her describing herself as a Libtertarian, so I;d be interested to know when the phrase became popular with the laissez-faire crowd.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Because you're being lazy by equating the way modern market/capitalist economies may tinker with the margins as 'Leftist'.
But none of the above is by any definition 'Left'. Egalitarianism is also a prionciple advocated by modern christian democracy. Indeed, the social market idea is strongest in the European country with the most 'powerful' Christian Democracy ie Germany. It is not however 'Leftist'.
No-one sayd 'circumstances breed criminals', that's a rather silly populist attack when anyone points out that under certain circumstance people may do things that they wouldn' elsehwerw. It doesn't however negate any responsibility.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
And we're back to definitions.
How would you define "leftist"? In strict economic terms?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
So in short, they are a neo-liberal party, ie NOT leftist, with a handful of Leftists still in their ranks..... As such not Leftist. The BNP claim that Labour are marxist, does that make their perception right? Perception doesn't make something so.
The use of ther word 'Libertarian' to describe right-wing anarcaps is a modern, ie 60's onwards, phenomenon.
Similar threads
