(March 3, 2009 at 8:26 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I think the word "anarchy" is too close to a complete abolition of the government, which yes would invariably lead to chaos. What I like about Libertarianism is it seeks to create a small form of government that increases civil and economic liberties whilst eradicating the parts of government that simply should not play a role. So whilst in an anarchic system you wouldn't have a "government" to speak of, in a Libertarian system you would. They would be elected to their positions just as we elect people today.

Yep we seem to differ in understanding/agreement of both terms;

I see anarchy as the natural form of society at a relatively simple level ,such as hunting and gathering or survival-level agrarian societies with no large population centres. Large concentrated populations (say a city,which is defined here as 10,000 people) invariably leads to the establishment of formal hierarchies.



I see Libertarianism as the thinking man's conservatism. As explained by Americans I've come across it seems to be the logical extension of laissez faire capitalism..Libertarianism seems to me to be an ideology of individualism, based on what I see as the human tendency to self interest. It's main weakness seems to be a lack of emphasis on social justice,relying on the notion of the trickle down effect,which is dubious at best.

(March 3, 2009 at 6:39 pm)bozo Wrote: The democratic system we had in the UK offered some hope up until 1985 ....

Oh rubbish ... the system, hasn't changed, society has changed.

I put the blame for that at Thatcher's door when she turned the nation into a bunch of petty frakkking capitalists.

Kyu

---

(March 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No. It involves reducing the government to the minimum size possible, freeing up civil and economic liberties. We stand for the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. We don't really fit on the traditional "left - right" scale, but this scale shows you where we are:

Ah ... well since I don't believe in rights per se doesn't sound like something I'd believe in

Kyu

(March 3, 2009 at 9:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Precisely, police force, army, hospitals, etc. There would be no laws on what people could do to their own bodies, so all drugs would be legal, as well as euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. The legalisation of drugs would cause a reduction in the amount of crime (especially gang and gun related), and all drugs would be taxed in the way cigarettes are. Increased levels of drug awareness campaigns would make people more aware of the dangers, and let people get off them safely. Freedom of speech would be held as an inalienable right, except when that freedom of speech is slanderous towards a specific individual.

Interesting.

Would there be no big companies, etc? They can be a pain in the ass at times I think. But some people might just be crap at certain jobs I think. Incompetent etc, and it's more important with certain jobs (e.g potentially dangerous ones).

What would happen with some of the jobs? How would it be decided who was qualified, etc, etc? Or would that still be handled by the government?

(March 4, 2009 at 5:38 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Would there be no big companies, etc? They can be a pain in the ass at times I think. But some people might just be crap at certain jobs I think. Incompetent etc, and it's more important with certain jobs (e.g potentially dangerous ones).

It would be a capitalist society, so big companies are bound to exist. The only difference is that big companies wouldn't get massive payouts from the government (like some banks recently did). Companies would be expected to be financially stable or terminate their existence.

Quote:What would happen with some of the jobs? How would it be decided who was qualified, etc, etc? Or would that still be handled by the government?

The government would still control education, so the standard would be set the same way it is now. Companies would decide on who to hire as they would e private businesses.

(March 4, 2009 at 5:26 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Ah ... well since I don't believe in rights per se doesn't sound like something I'd believe in

Can you expand on that a bit? You're saying you don't believe in the right to life? It's a bit odd to meet someone who doesn't believe in "rights", without them society would surely fall apart.

(March 4, 2009 at 6:24 am)Tiberius Wrote: Can you expand on that a bit? You're saying you don't believe in the right to life? It's a bit odd to meet someone who doesn't believe in "rights", without them society would surely fall apart.

Not really ... I believe in responsibilities, so rights devolve from responsibility and there are no inalienable rights.

IOW I have the responsibility to grant you freedom of speech and you have the right to freedom of speech because (in principle) I and everyone else actually does "grant you" that privilege (as you do to them) ... so your "rights" are the sum total of those which a given society grants you and none can be inalienable (though arguably some should be but that's probably just my liberalist mindset).

I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it ... the thing about a "rights" based society is that there is no specific need to engender the idea that if you (as a member of a society) have a specific right then you so does everyone else and is your responsibility to ensure others have it (as it evident in the mindset of many that believe they have certain rights yet fail to accept others have the same ... theists are often masters of this idea). If we taught the idea that we are responsible (personally so) for granting others various rights then people might start to understand the implications of rights & responsibilities.

It's one of the reasons I don't entirely buy into the idea that terrorists and criminals (for example) have the same rights as everyone else, in essence because they have failed to provide those same rights to others.

Kyu

(March 3, 2009 at 10:35 pm)padraic Wrote:

(March 3, 2009 at 8:26 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I think the word "anarchy" is too close to a complete abolition of the government, which yes would invariably lead to chaos. What I like about Libertarianism is it seeks to create a small form of government that increases civil and economic liberties whilst eradicating the parts of government that simply should not play a role. So whilst in an anarchic system you wouldn't have a "government" to speak of, in a Libertarian system you would. They would be elected to their positions just as we elect people today.

Yep we seem to differ in understanding/agreement of both terms;

I see anarchy as the natural form of society at a relatively simple level ,such as hunting and gathering or survival-level agrarian societies with no large population centres. Large concentrated populations (say a city,which is defined here as 10,000 people) invariably leads to the establishment of formal hierarchies.



I see Libertarianism as the thinking man's conservatism. As explained by Americans I've come across it seems to be the logical extension of laissez faire capitalism..Libertarianism seems to me to be an ideology of individualism, based on what I see as the human tendency to self interest. It's main weakness seems to be a lack of emphasis on social justice,relying on the notion of the trickle down effect,which is dubious at best.

I think people are a little unclear on what anarchy is. Consider what happened during the Spanish Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution Without any kind of central government, people formed small communities based on socialist principles. Not only did this happen in urban areas as well as agricultural ones, but factories run with this system were much more productive than they had been under capitalism. Inefficiencies were cut hugely by taking out jobs like the manager and the owners and letting the workers run the factory themselves.

(March 4, 2009 at 5:26 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(March 3, 2009 at 6:39 pm)bozo Wrote: The democratic system we had in the UK offered some hope up until 1985 ....

Oh rubbish ... the system, hasn't changed, society has changed.

I put the blame for that at Thatcher's door when she turned the nation into a bunch of petty frakkking capitalists.

Kyu

---

(March 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No. It involves reducing the government to the minimum size possible, freeing up civil and economic liberties. We stand for the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. We don't really fit on the traditional "left - right" scale, but this scale shows you where we are:

Ah ... well since I don't believe in rights per se doesn't sound like something I'd believe in

Kyu

If you are correct about society changing, then a big change is that nowadays 2 out of 3 people entitled to vote in a general election don't. Doesn't that endorse my assertion re. lack of choice?

As regards Thatcher, the evil incarnate, as much as I hate her, she was a true champion for the laissez-faire capitalists. On the other hand, the working class was betrayed by its so-called leaders.

On a lighter note, how can someone as abrasive as you, Kyu, be classed a " moderator " or even more bizarre a " super moderator "? lol.

(March 4, 2009 at 6:04 pm)bozo Wrote: If you are correct about society changing, then a big change is that nowadays 2 out of 3 people entitled to vote in a general election don't. Doesn't that endorse my assertion re. lack of choice?

Might do, might not ... seems to me it could as easily be explained by other factors.

(March 4, 2009 at 6:04 pm)bozo Wrote: As regards Thatcher, the evil incarnate, as much as I hate her, she was a true champion for the laissez-faire capitalists. On the other hand, the working class was betrayed by its so-called leaders.

Though I would very much like to believe that the truth is more like they had no choice, Thatcher did a very good job of dismantling much of the welfare state and state owned infrastructure and I would like her to suffer for that (if there is a hell of torment, she belongs there ... I have some very personal reasons for wanting her to suffer) ... as far as I can tell moving to the right was the only way Labour could het into power and realistically to have any impact, you have to be in power.

(March 4, 2009 at 6:04 pm)bozo Wrote: On a lighter note, how can someone as abrasive as you, Kyu, be classed a " moderator " or even more bizarre a " super moderator "?

When did personal criticism become "a lighter note"? You're gonna have to ask Adrian that I'm afraid ... personally I'm delighted and more than a bit "honoured" to have been selected.

Kyu

If there were no goverment what would happen to healthcare and science which get their fundings from the goverment?

(March 5, 2009 at 8:09 am)Giff Wrote: If there were no goverment what would happen to healthcare and science which get their fundings from the goverment?

The UK stands as testament to exactly that I think.

Kyu