Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[slow_rider]

But how does replacing government agencies (whose only goal, in theory, is to serve the public good) with coporations (whose only goal is to maximize profit to pay for multi-million dollar executive compensation packages) supposed to improve society?

And let's imagine these corporations existed. Why would anyone choose to pay for their service? Let's say they test products for toxic chemicals, for example. They're going to do the testing reguardless of whether I pay, and in the information age the results will leak out in little to no time. The same goes for accident clean up. If someone pays them to clean up an accident, I can benefit without paying anything at all. Are they going to leave the wreck in place until every person who will ever use that road again has contributed their share?

So you see, providing a public good is not profitable because there is no incentive to pay for them.

 

[Famine]

But how does replacing government agencies (whose only goal, in theory, is to serve the public good) with coporations (whose only goal is to maximize profit to pay for multi-million dollar executive compensation packages) supposed to improve society?

It's not - but that's not what Libertarianism is...

 

[Keef]

But how does replacing government agencies (whose only goal, in theory, is to serve the public good) with coporations (whose only goal is to maximize profit to pay for multi-million dollar executive compensation packages) supposed to improve society?

Who said anything about replacing?

 

[Exorcet]

But how does replacing government agencies (whose only goal, in theory, is to serve the public good) with coporations (whose only goal is to maximize profit to pay for multi-million dollar executive compensation packages) supposed to improve society?

The only government being removed are those portions of it that would force their own will on people. Corporations won't run anything except themselves.

And let's imagine these corporations existed. Why would anyone choose to pay for their service? Let's say they test products for toxic chemicals, for example. They're going to do the testing reguardless of whether I pay, and in the information age the results will leak out in little to no time. The same goes for accident clean up. If someone pays them to clean up an accident, I can benefit without paying anything at all. Are they going to leave the wreck in place until every person who will ever use that road again has contributed their share?

So you see, providing a public good is not profitable because there is no incentive to pay for them.

No one wants roads littered with crashed cars, so there is a pretty obvious incentive to having clean roads. Your concern about payment doesn't really work because it's so vague. For one thing where did the road come from? Let's say it is privately owned? If so how is the owner going to attract users if the road is in terrible condition? The owner would gladly pay for clean up. Maybe it's a community owned road and part of the agreement for living in this community is paying a road tax. There are your funds.

They could also just be non profit, like Consumer Reports. Which also works for the chemical test case. Besides, consumers would probably prefer brands that meet good standards rather than unregulated mystery products. Even if it costs money to be certified to a certain standard, there is good reason for a company to go through with certification.

 

[KSaiyu]

Coming back to reduced monitoring of schools, how would libertarianism handle threats to national security:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...in-Britain-Now-the-crackdown-is-launched.html

Under the new plan, councils will have to “take steps to ensure the safeguarding of children in hitherto unregulated places”, such as supplementary schools and tuition centres. One teacher at the centre of the Trojan Horse scandal has been handed an interim ban but has instead set up a private tuition centre, which nothing currently prevents him from doing. The new document also promises tighter rules on the granting of British citizenship, saying that any applicant will have to “prove adherence to British values and active participation in society”.

 

[Famine]

Coming back to reduced monitoring of schools, how would libertarianism handle threats to national security

Depends on both the threat and how you're defining "national security".

It's a core of almost every kind of Libertarianism that the only valid function of government is to protect citizens' rights, both domestically (police) and internationally (armed forces). In that framework "national security" has somewhat of a different meaning to the current version, often levelled at 'subversives'.


It your cited paragraph, you may have to explain how a private individual setting up an opt-in private educational establishment is a threat to national security.

 

[KSaiyu]

Proven links to a shared mentality looking to subvert national authority and replace it with another form of law (in this case sharia). This currently affects schooling from primary through to University level (hence the Home Office involvement).

I wonder at what stage the rights of the many trump the rights of the individual, and how is it effectively enforced.

In that framework "national security" has somewhat of a different meaning to the current version, often levelled at 'subversives'.

I'd imagine quite a similar response then. That's encouraging

 

[Famine]

Proven links to a shared mentality looking to subvert national authority and replace it with another form of law (in this case sharia). This currently affects schooling from primary through to University level (hence the Home Office involvement).

Ah, the Thought Police.

What other kinds of thinking are a threat to national security?

I wonder at what stage the rights of the many trump the rights of the individual, and how is it effectively enforced.

They are the same thing and cannot conflict. If a situation arises where someone thinks that they are in conflict and one needs to take precedence over the other, the rights have not been codified correctly.

 

[KSaiyu]

Ah, the Thought Police.

What other kinds of thinking are a threat to national security?

You wish it was just thoughts

Just one example:

Another teacher at the sister primary school controlled by Park View, Razwan Faraz, has defended his brother, Ahmed, a man dubbed the “terrorists’ favourite bookseller” whose Birmingham shop, now closed by police, distributed extremist literature to many involved in terror plots, including one of the 7/7 bombers.

In 2011 Ahmed Faraz was jailed for multiple terror-related offences, though he was later cleared of some of the charges on appeal. Razwan said the convictions were an attack on free speech. Before moving to Park View’s primary school, he worked at Adderley Primary.

 

[Famine]

You wish it was just thoughts

Not really, no. It was your response to my query on how 'national security' is defined that dealt exclusively with thoughts - and it seems that you want certain kinds of thinking to be legislated against under the auspices of 'national security'.

If you had a more specific query in mind, you ought to have said it at the time - because the original query wasn't specific at all:

Coming back to reduced monitoring of schools, how would libertarianism handle threats to national security

Depends on both the threat and how you're defining "national security".

It's a core of almost every kind of Libertarianism that the only valid function of government is to protect citizens' rights, both domestically (police) and internationally (armed forces). In that framework "national security" has somewhat of a different meaning to the current version, often levelled at 'subversives'.


It your cited paragraph, you may have to explain how a private individual setting up an opt-in private educational establishment is a threat to national security.

The answer to the question you posed was that it depends on the nature of the threat and exactly what is meant by 'national security'. I asked if you could explain why the linked paragraph was a threat to national security - it seemed unconnected - and you posted a couple of sentences about shared anti-authoritarian thoughts (which is pretty much what Libertarianism is...).

You seem obsessed by the 'Trojan Horse' situation, and it was answered how that would have been dealt with by a Libertarian society (if it would even have occurred in one) much, much earlier in the thread. I don't know what it has to do with how 'national security' is addressed under Libertarianism, but I can only really direct you back to what was said back then and repeat that the answer to how a Libertarian society would deal with a threat to national security would depend on the nature of the threat and how you'd define 'national security'.

 

[KSaiyu]

You seem obsessed by the 'Trojan Horse' situation, and it was answered how that would have been dealt with by a Libertarian society (if it would even have occurred in one) much, much earlier in the thread.

There's a reason for that. Sections of my university's SU have unfortunately been infiltrated by Islamists and so I have seen what exposure does first hand, including students being arrested on terror charges.

The answer to the question you posed was that it depends on the nature of the threat and exactly what is meant by 'national security'. I asked if you could explain why the linked paragraph was a threat to national security - it seemed unconnected - and you posted a couple of sentences about shared anti-authoritarian thoughts (which is pretty much what Libertarianism is...).

The outcome of our earlier discussion was that people would be relatively free to teach what they want, but I still don't know the extent of dealing with a threat to the established authority (in our scenario a libertarian government from a group looking to subvert, through terrorism). I'd like to know which practical measures would be employed to deal with the manifest threat, which I don't believe was explained, and how this could be enforced within a style of government more geared towards the individual.

 

[Famine]

The outcome of our earlier discussion was that people would be relatively free to teach what they want, but I still don't know the extent of dealing with a threat to the established authority (in our scenario a libertarian government from a group looking to subvert, through terrorism).

Define terrorism.

At this point you've defined a threat to national security to include a group mentality to subvert national authority, and expanded it above to "a threat to the established authority" - both of which definitions actually cover what libertarianism is right now. A libertarian government wouldn't define a threat to national security in that manner, so we'd need to really establish what one is before we can possibly go about describing what a response to one would be.

I'd like to know practical measures would be employed to deal with the manifest threat, which I don't believe was explained, and how this could be enforced within a style of government more geared towards the individual.

It's a core of almost every kind of Libertarianism that the only valid function of government is to protect citizens' rights, both domestically (police) and internationally (armed forces).

A libertarian government by just about any definition (some anarchocapitalists would disagree) would retain police and armed forces, should a physical response or prophylaxis be necessary.

 

[Joel]

The same way we deal with the Westboro Baptist Church, by being grown ups about it and thinking for ourselves to decide their ideas are insane.

 

[KSaiyu]

Define terrorism.

Traveling to Syria, joining an international terrorist organisation and returning to Britain.

At this point you've defined a threat to national security to include a group mentality to subvert national authority, and expanded it above to "a threat to the established authority" - both of which definitions actually cover what libertarianism is right now. A libertarian government wouldn't define a threat to national security in that manner, so we'd need to really establish what one is before we can possibly go about describing what a response to one would be.A libertarian government by just about any definition (some anarchocapitalists would disagree) would retain police and armed forces, should a physical response or prophylaxis be necessary.

What would a libertarian government deem such a group? Threat or not?

The same way we deal with the Westboro Baptist Church, by being grown ups about it and thinking for ourselves to decide their ideas are insane.

Do the WBC have members arrested for plotting to kill the President?

 

[Famine]

Traveling to Syria, joining an international terrorist organisation and returning to Britain.

How does that threaten the 'national security' of our libertarian society?

This is what I'm asking you to define - what exactly a 'threat to national security' is in the libertarian society. I can't answer your questions about what the libertarian society would do about a threat to national security if you keep giving me examples of threats to authoritarian societies' national securities.

What would a libertarian government deem such a group? Threat or not?

Wait, what group?

The same way we deal with the Westboro Baptist Church, by being grown ups about it and thinking for ourselves to decide their ideas are insane.

Do the WBC have members arrested for plotting to kill the President?

That response seems completely unrelated to the post it's addressed to - aside from both having the WBC in them.

@Noob616 pointed out that libertarians (and thus a libertarian society and goverment would) deal with people like the WBC - who spew lots of hatred but aren't especially troublesome - by allowing adults to make their own choices, not determining that they are a threat to national security due to their groupthink about homosexuality being at odds with larger society and national authority and visiting the force of the law upon them.

I don't really know how a plot to assassinate the Queen links into that.

 

[Dotini]

Do the WBC have members arrested for plotting to kill the President?

The WBC held protests near funerals of servicemen.

Their protests have since been legislatively felonized, civil judgments to the tune of millions have been rendered against them in lawsuits, liens placed against their property, their entry banned into the UK and Canada, their websites hacked, etc.

 

[Exorcet]

Do the WBC have members arrested for plotting to kill the President?

Have they tried to kill the President?

Killing someone is a rights violation, so that's pretty good grounds to come in and stop them.

 

[KSaiyu]

How does that threaten the 'national security' of our libertarian society?

This is what I'm asking you to define - what exactly a 'threat to national security' is in the libertarian society. I can't answer your questions about what the libertarian society would do about a threat to national security if you keep giving me examples of threats to authoritarian societies' national securities.Wait, what group?That response seems completely unrelated to the post it's addressed to - aside from both having the WBC in them.

@Noob616 pointed out that libertarians (and thus a libertarian society and goverment would) deal with people like the WBC - who spew lots of hatred but aren't especially troublesome - by allowing adults to make their own choices, not determining that they are a threat to national security due to their groupthink about homosexuality being at odds with larger society and national authority and visiting the force of the law upon them.

I don't really know how a plot to assassinate the Queen links into that.

I'm not sure I'm following so I'll simplify. All the threats Britain is currently under, do you think they would vanish in a libertarian world. If not, how would they be addressed.

Basically the Home Office response to Islamism. Yay or nay in a libertarian world.

 

[Dotini]

Yay or nay in a libertarian world.

Libertarianism is an essentially American phenomenon, I think it is fair to say.

At its heart is a non-interventionist, insular democratic republic, but wide open to global trade.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's attractive. I'd want to know in facing the current terrorist threat to the UK and its citizens what countermeasures would be offered. When would government step in essentially. Would terrorist sympathetic madrassas be allowed for instance

 

[Joel]

Well the first thing is that in a libertarian society there wouldn't be a massive public education system or NHS to "Trojan Horse" in the first place. It's a lot harder for Islamist propaganda to seep into thousands of private schools across the country than to permeate into public school boards from the top.

 

[KSaiyu]

Joke post? You're saying it would be harder for individuals to infiltrate or create individual institutions?

 

[Joel]

Joke post? You're saying it would be harder for individuals to infiltrate or create individual institutions?

Not a joke post. It would be harder to infiltrate thousands of different institutions instead of being able to just corrupt a few people at the top of a huge public education system.

This is why even though politicians play lip service to small business they love large corporations. It's easier to twist the arm of a few people at the top of a couple large corporations or government agencies than to get every mom and pop shop or small organization to bend to your will.

 

[KSaiyu]

As Famine said, you serve the community's wishes. Some will want Muslim governors only in their school (think the Muslim ghettos). This is duly provided, with extremists in their midst. Congratulations, that whole community has no escape. You contain the spread by (as you rightly point out) stopping infiltration individually. But you have done nothing for the ones infected. And the years and years of indoctrination to follow.

 

[Dotini]

It's attractive. I'd want to know in facing the current terrorist threat to the UK and its citizens what countermeasures would be offered. When would government step in essentially. Would terrorist sympathetic madrassas be allowed for instance

I'm a real libertarian, in the sense that I've voted consistently libertarian, donated money and time to libertarian grassroots politicking, and subscribed to periodical libertarian literature for over 12 years.

Unfortunately, libertarians have never attained the status of a major party, let alone been a ruling party.

A libertarian take on your thorny question is problematic. But libertarians had a real problem with the US sponsoring terrorist sympathetic madrassas in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[Exorcet]

As Famine said, you serve the community's wishes.

The community serves itself. If people want extremists schools, they need to set them up. They aren't simply provided. They certainly aren't made into an artificial monopoly. So even if one of these schools pops up, nothing stops a school with a completely different outlook from popping up across the street.

Congratulations, that whole community has no escape.

Besides just not going to an extremist school.

You contain the spread by (as you rightly point out) stopping infiltration individually. But you have done nothing for the ones infected. And the years and years of indoctrination to follow.

Well for one thing, you've got them trying to spread their message from within your community, rather than in an isolated extremist camp thousands of miles away. It becomes easy to compare what they say to the world around them. If they tend to lie an exaggerate, it becomes easier to find out.

 

[KSaiyu]

The community serves itself. If people want extremists schools, they need to set them up. They aren't simply provided. They certainly aren't made into an artificial monopoly. So even if one of these schools pops up, nothing stops a school with a completely different outlook from popping up across the street.

Never been to a Muslim ghetto have we.

Besides just not going to an extremist school.

Definitely haven't

Well for one thing, you've got them trying to spread their message from within your community, rather than in an isolated extremist camp thousands of miles away. It becomes easy to compare what they say to the world around them. If they tend to lie an exaggerate, it becomes easier to find out.

Last talk I went to I was told MI5 caused Jihadi John. I'd say roughly 90% agreed. The Amish are surrounded by the modern world - how many of them compare what they hear to the world around them.

 

[Dotini]

Where does the money come from for these schools? Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, NGOs?

 

[Exorcet]

Never been to a Muslim ghetto have we.

Definitely haven't

What I said isn't really area specific.

Last talk I went to I was told MI5 caused Jihadi John. I'd say roughly 90% agreed. The Amish are surrounded by the modern world - how many of them compare what they hear to the world around them.

I don't know how many Amish bother to look outside of their own culture, but it's not really an issue if they are content where they are. Should the need or desire arise to look outside, it's possible to do so. It would be much harder to do that if they were isolated.

 

[KSaiyu]

There's a money trail from Saudi for some sects, but my research is pretty poor in this area I'll admit. With Trojan Horse it was just infiltration of existing schools at governor level - this then gave the power to hire and fire teachers and eventually headteachers. It's called entry-ism - and it happened at our senior level too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11427370/Islamic-radicals-at-the-heart-of-Whitehall.html

Entryism, the favourite tactic of the 1980s’ Militant Tendency, is when a political party or institution is infiltrated by groups with a radically different agenda. Since Militant’s Trotskyites were expelled from the Labour Party, the word has rather fallen out of fashion.

But now, according to one Muslim leader, Islamic radicals are practising entryism of their own — into the heart of Whitehall – courtesy of a woman who was until recently a government minister.

Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to sit in Cabinet, handed official posts to people linked to Islamist groups, including a man involved in an “unpleasant and bullying” campaign to win planning permission for the controversial London “megamosque” proposed by a fundamentalist Islamic sect.

He sits – alongside other radicals or former radicals and their allies – on a “cross-Government working group on anti-Muslim hatred” set up by Lady Warsi and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

Some members of the group are using their seats at the table to urge that Whitehall work with Islamist and extremist-linked bodies, including one described by the Prime Minister as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”. Some are also pressing to lift bans on foreign hate preachers from entering Britain, including Zakir Naik, who has stated that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.