Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

I don't and won't speak for others but personally, I don't have a problem with immigration.

I think perhaps you are confusing the terms 'Libertarian' and 'Member of the Republican Party'. They are very different things IMO.

okay. fair point. that quiz was pretty american biased.

dots_thots

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The trouble with right-wing libertarianism is that when you actually work out the policy implications, you realise it is a just a very fuzzy, woolly veil for screwing the poor and worshipping the rich.

Libertarianism is about being treated as an individual by the state rather than as part of a group. Gay-rights, race-rights, gender-rights - you should be treated as an equal individually rather than derive your rights by whatever group you happen to belong to, chosen or otherwise. It's a nonsense. People forget that in Nazi Germany, they pursued race-rights and human-rights policies; it's about subdivision and alienation.

Libertarianism is about personal freedom, particularly the freedom to fail and as a state, it's about not going around policing the world and trying to become the global hegemon.

Collectivist forms of government make the rich richer, by making property of and literally farming the poor. Collectivists like Lenin (who believed he was screwing them) were backed by western "capitalists" because they hate competition, which is why they are not really capitalists at all.

The parties keep passing the baton from one to the other in this country and every time they manage to get away with it. I'm tired of it, I want to end this false left/right situation where the parties are run by special interests. It doesn't matter whether you vote blue, red, yellow or green, nothing of significance really changes - and it never will. The debate is thin, particularly in context of our history where, at times, there was a much wider choice.

Since the pinnacle after the Reform Act of 1832, we've been more and more excluded from government - both parties are continually pursuing centralisation of power. Laws are enacted and never retracted. The agenda is ultimately ALWAYS served. Whoever get's in power simply runs the ball further down the field for their globalist masters who brag about it all the time.

People fell for Tony Blair, who consistently broke his own manifesto promises from his very first actions in parliament. I saw right through his fake smile from day one and had to watch the excitement end in tears. Now people, are interested in Cameron. He claimed he didn't even know about the Bilderberg group. If he truly hasn't heard of them he's unlikely to make PM since just about anyone who's anyone in British politics is a member. But whoever get's in is likely to pursue the agenda.

It's time for something different for once... how many more times are we prepared to go round the carousel feeling more and more sickly, before we actually get off it?

Whether you like Ron Paul or not doesn't really matter, he actually has real principles, and can't be bought or made to vote against them - an incredibly rare thing these days and something which career politicians almost never live up to. If we had people like him over here on all sides of the debate; people who respect our rights, we'd have a legitimate government. Imagine that!

Generali

ninky wrote: »

okay. fair point. that quiz was pretty american biased.

Personally, I am against large corporations existing and if I Ruled The World I'd break them up. I think they're anti-freedom as much as big Government is, if anything more so.

The US Republicans are as hatefully Corporatist (under my personal definition of Corporatism rather than the Political Science definition) as New Labour or any French Socialist party.

For me, the biggest positive for Lady Thatcher was that she stood against Corporatist interests: not just the unions but accountants, bankers and lawyers too.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

For me, the biggest positive for Lady Thatcher was that she stood against Corporatist interests: not just the unions but accountants, bankers and lawyers too.

Come on, how did Thatcher stand up to bankers? What about the Big Bang?

What about Westland? What about Murdoch?

JayScottGreenspan

tomterm8 wrote: »

Godel proved that if god exists, then most certainly god exists. This is not rocket science. I much prefer Decartes Ontological Proof of God, it is the same argument, but without all the annoying maths.

When I read Descartes' Ontological Proof of God I thought it must have been a very cunning satire.

Not allowed to refute the existence of God, eh? Well, here's a very very rubbish 'proof' that God exists, which I'm saying is the best proof there is. Ergo religion is a load of rubbish.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Come on, how did Thatcher stand up to bankers? What about the Big Bang?

What about Westland? What about Murdoch?

The Big Bang was about getting rid of entrenched interests. Have you met a jobber recently for example?

The main point of the Big Bang was to get rid of fixed (high) commissions and to allow people and firms to trade with brokers and each other directly rather than use jobbers (people that were mandated to be the go betweens between brokers). It was against the entrenched group working the exchanges at the time and very pro consumer.

Do you think the Big Bang was about something different? I'd be interested in your take on it as an interested and intelligent layman.

IMO, the legal changes were pretty simple and have led down a very positive road of decreasing costs and increasing openness for buyers and sellers of shares.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

The Big Bang was about getting rid of entrenched interests. Have you met a jobber recently for example?

Okay, she stood up to stock jobbers. She took on one vested interest to serve another.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Okay, she stood up to stock jobbers. She took on one vested interest to serve another.

Not really.

The modern large scale broker/dealers came about as a result of the Big Bang, that much is true. However, they weren't vested interests as they didn't really exist prior to Big Bang.

They weren't meant to happen and haven't been a good thing as largely what has happened is that a lot of small companies which had prices propped up by dumb laws have been replaced by a smaller number of companies who have their position propped up by different dumb laws (most of which are post-Thatcher).

I realise you hate Lady Thatcher but lets not put things at her feet that have nothing to do with her.

I am starting to think that perhaps you have a limited understanding of the Big Bang. Now is your opportunity to show I am wrong. What, in your own words, is your understanding of what the Big Bang was about and in what way did that "save another [vested interest]" please?

I'm off to bed as I have loads on this weekend. I look forward to reading your reply tomorrow as I'm sure you must understand what the Big Bang was about rather than just being vaguely against it as a result of some stuff you read while not bothering to find out about it and so going out on a bit of a silly limb and now feeling rather sheepish.

Surely you wouldn't do that again!

Toodle pip!

Sir_Humphrey

Big Bang was a process of stock market deregulation. Financial deregulation works to the favour of banks and other financial institutions (until the system collapses of course), as it allows higher profits.

I do not dispute that a lot of old school tie networks were broken down at the same time, but they just ended up being replaced by the new school tie Thatcherites.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Big Bang was a process of stock market deregulation. Financial deregulation works to the favour of banks and other financial institutions (until the system collapses of course), as it allows higher profits.

I do not dispute that a lot of old school tie networks were broken down at the same time, but they just ended up being replaced by the new school tie Thatcherites.

No you are wrong.

Big Bang worked in favour of consumers as it got rid of minimum charges.

Nothing in the Big Bang legislation mandated any group to take over. Companies with low costs and good service thrived. The others failed.

You don't understand what happened and so you can't explain what resulted from those changes. If you understood you could give some detail rather than these silly "New School Tie" lines.

I really enjoy arguing with you normally as you have a deep understanding of loads of Philosophical stuff that I just don't know about. You're out of your depth here though - you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

BTW, precisely which parts of Big Bang led to the current insolvency of banks and shadow banks do you think? Some technical detail rather than 'because I say so' would be extra groovy.