List your parties in order of preference.

The Bear · 29-04-2008, 07:44 AM

Bit of a shame we can't have a "none of the above" and if that got the highest vote then a re-run with different candidates.

I know it's not practical, but it would be nice!

Smidgey · 29-04-2008, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

I would say most UKIP members are not Libertarians.

Of course they are not. I have never, nor will I ever be a member of UKIP. It has taken me almost five months to decide I wanted to even be in the UKLP (which I think I will apply for once my exams are over).

Quote:

A lot of activists are the party elite tend to be however.
Much like the Tory party.

I don't think there is a single libertarian in the House of Commons. If the Conservative party elite are libertarian, then why on earth am I not living in a more libertarian society right now?

Where are your sources for this?

Quote:

As for Libertarianism I know all about it.
Libertarianism is responsible for the destruction of virtually every Conservative party in the Western World.

Can you provide examples please.

Furthermore, if you are that afraid of them why on earth would you want them in the BNP to 'destroy' that party too?

Smidgey · 29-04-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Former UK companies that Thatcher sold are now very often in foreign hands.

I think Thatcher went about privatisation in the wrong way (consider again rail privatisation). But why shouldn't the companies that pay to drill the oil get the money for doing so?

Quote:

Oil and Gas for example is a ridiculous situation where these companies sell our oil resources and gas resources abroad then we have to import from the likes of Russia.

Just out of simplicity, lets say our oil sold for 2 dollars a unit and theirs sold for one dollar a unit. We could get twice as much oil. Why would we want to hurt our economy? Obviously it is much more complex than this, but you get the general idea.

Furthermore, oil is not a general substance, not all oil can be used in all oil processes. For example, we have Brent crude, but you also get WTI or Dubai Crude and so on.

Quote:

We should be trying to become self sufficient.

An impossibility. You are opening our country up for more damage from foreign nations than I am.

Look at the quote in my signature.

Quote:

As for trade it's very much about competition between nations Russia and China understand this totally.

Two extreme socialist nations - my point exactly. Furthermore, if China decimated its foreign markets it would destroy itself. People believe that the USA is in China's back pocket because of the huge trade deficit. However, if the two countries were to stop trading, China would be hurt far more than the USA would. The USA would lose out on many products, which is not as bad as China losing out on hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It's economy would slump.

The two need each other. Their animosity towards one another is just a facade. If they really distrusted one another, something would have been done about it.

As for Russia, I could barely think of any industrialised country I would wish to emulate less than Russia.

Again, take the example of Britain and France. If France were our only trading partner and vice versa. We would hope that the people of France become wealthier as our people do in order to sustain our wealth and in turn make us even wealthier as they buy more of our products at higher prices. Both countries benefit. Trade and competition are completely different things and the two must be separated.

A trade will never occur unless both parties benefit (except in cases of knowing generosity, fraud or stupidity).

Quote:

Hence why Russia is nationalising huge swaths of its energy industry and now trying to nationalise ours.
National independence depends on economic independence.

Eurosceptic Atlantacist provided the perfect response to this. If Russia were acting maliciously towards us and a Russian owned company decided to switch off our electricity supply, we would just nationalise it then sell it off to the highest bidder once the crisis was over. The workers and the infrastructure would all be on British soil.

Not to mention I don't think that this would ever happen.

Smidgey · 29-04-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Of course.

How nice.

I've noticed from a lot of your threads you seem to be a means justifies the ends type of guy. What with your opinion on Singapore during WWII, this and the Jamaican rebellion.

You would make a good polician.

British-Conservatism · 29-04-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we export it because it fetches a higher price than what we buy it in for.

You do realise that if it ever came to it and a foreign owned company in the UK tried to shut own something like energy production (which I agree with Smidgey - would never happen, it's not compatible with the profit motive), that we could just nationalise the necessary infrastructure and start producing energy again?

Not likely when we have less than a week of gas reserves.
Besides selling our share in BP and Britoil has already cost us billions.

BonnieDundee · 01-05-2008, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tito

Ayn Rand was *not* a libertarian. Not by your definition, or the proper one.

I don't care she was related to the American style. My definition equals the proper one by the way.

BonnieDundee · 01-05-2008, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Very good points.
Libertarians seem to see things in very dogmatic and unrealistic terms.
Their ideology is much like communism.

Well I'll correct you by saying the American style of libertarianism. Anarcho-syndicalism for example does not suffer this dogmaticism.

The problem with American style libertarianism is it tries to great a doctrine that solves all human political and social problems by adherence to a few prinicples particularly their idea of property rights. It can only do this by being very simplistic and pretending their is something natural about it.

For instance they start with the idea of self-ownership and somehow end up with the idea that a sticky, rightwing version of lockean property rights are natural for all contexts and that adherence to these rules solves all human political issues. Although they tend to conveniently forget that corporate personhood and ownership and such are at odds with lockean property rights.
So you end up with the simplitistic and unrealistic dogma of always advising strict adherence to these dubious axioms.

Not that I don't like American style libertarians, I'm influenced, admire and read them as I do all libertarians, they are just some of the theoretically weakest libertarians and decentralists in my opinion. And they are because they aim for a few rules which can easily and coherently be used to solve all humans political, economic and social affairs and these simply don't exist.

Smidgey · 01-05-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Well I'll correct you by saying the American style of libertarianism. Anarcho-syndicalism for example does not suffer this dogmaticism.

The problem with American style libertarianism is it tries to great a doctrine that solves all human political and social problems by adherence to a few prinicples particularly their idea of property rights. It can only do this by being very simplistic and pretending their is something natural about it.

For instance they start with the idea of self-ownership and somehow end up with the idea that a sticky, rightwing version of lockean property rights are natural for all contexts and that adherence to these rules solves all human political issues. Although they tend to conveniently forget that corporate personhood and ownership and such are at odds with lockean property rights.
So you end up with the simplitistic and unrealistic dogma of always advising strict adherence to these dubious axioms.

Not that I don't like American style libertarians, I'm influenced, admire and read them as I do all libertarians, they are just some of the theoretically weakest libertarians and decentralists in my opinion. And they are because they aim for a few rules which can easily and coherently be used to solve all humans political, economic and social affairs and these simply don't exist.

I think you've just created a huge straw man.

I have yet to come across a single libertarian that claims his position is a panacea and will create some kind of golden utopia.

As for Locke, in another thread you said that you were fed up of people making up the opinion of the dead for them. It seems you might be doing that just here. The Lockean proviso is extremely well defined in his Two Treatises on Government. As for Nozick's revision of it, it keeps true to the original proviso, whilst removing the problems (i.e. that someone could own the whole sea and that the first appropriation would in unjust). I don't see how this is a rightwing definition of the Lockean proviso since the conclusion that Locke wanted was exactly the same - just the way he got there was problematic.

Smidgey · 01-05-2008, 09:40 AM

By the way, you are quick to denounce other theories of property, but I have yet to see you explain what you own theory of property is.

In fact, much of your political beliefs are rather vague to me. I know that you are a decentralist, but that could mean anything - both libertarians and the BNP could be considered decentralist too.

John in Scotland · 01-05-2008, 05:05 PM

1. UKIP
2. Conservative
3. = SNP
= BNP
= Labour
= Lib Dems
7. Solidarity / Scottish Socialist Party / etc.
8. Greens

I've only included parties which field candidates in Scotland, and which are a reasonable size.

RESPECT would go in at number 7 with the other strongly socialist parties.

The Liberal Party would sit with the Lib Dems, Labour, and the nationalists.

The Libertarian Party would go in at 2nd place just ahead of the Conservatives.

In practice, I would spoil my ballot paper before voting for the Conservatives and anyone lower.

29-04-2008, 07:44 AM	#111 (permalink)
The Bear Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 2,178	Bit of a shame we can't have a "none of the above" and if that got the highest vote then a re-run with different candidates. I know it's not practical, but it would be nice! __________________ I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

01-05-2008, 09:40 AM	#119 (permalink)
Smidgey Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2,152 Party: Libertarian Party	By the way, you are quick to denounce other theories of property, but I have yet to see you explain what you own theory of property is. In fact, much of your political beliefs are rather vague to me. I know that you are a decentralist, but that could mean anything - both libertarians and the BNP could be considered decentralist too. __________________ How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might! -Georg Friedrich Händel

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-05-2008, 05:05 PM	#120 (permalink)
John in Scotland Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Highlands Posts: 81	1. UKIP 2. Conservative 3. = SNP = BNP = Labour = Lib Dems 7. Solidarity / Scottish Socialist Party / etc. 8. Greens I've only included parties which field candidates in Scotland, and which are a reasonable size. RESPECT would go in at number 7 with the other strongly socialist parties. The Liberal Party would sit with the Lib Dems, Labour, and the nationalists. The Libertarian Party would go in at 2nd place just ahead of the Conservatives. In practice, I would spoil my ballot paper before voting for the Conservatives and anyone lower.