Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: What type of Libertarian's are you

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Trusted Member Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    3,688

    Default What type of Libertarian's are you

    Just wondering what kind of Libertarian's you guys are, theres lots of types, after looking at your manifesto it seems your a fusion between Libertarian conservatism and Mutualism, but please correct me if im wrong.

    Im not here for trouble, Libertarianism is quite new to me and i would like to learn about you guys. you interest me.

    Have a nice day.
    British By Birth... English By The Grace Of God.

  2. #2
    Member kafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    People's Democratic United Kingdom of Fascism
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Your question is clearly directed at the LPUK leadership, but since you said you are keen to learn others' viewpoints, I'll offer you mine.

    I advocate absolute minimum government, based on the principle that the role of the state is to protect individual liberty. The minimum government I advocate would consist of a two-chambered, all-elected legislature to formulate law, but limited by a constitution so that they can pass no law which does not protect individual liberty. To enforce these laws, an independent judiciary would be appointed by the third and final separated power, an elected executive (president).

    This would leave individuals free to trade with one other, and assist one another by means of voluntary cooperation.

    Any further questions on these proposals, I'll be happy to answer them.

  3. #3
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kafir View Post
    To enforce these laws, an independent judiciary would be appointed by the third and final separated power, an elected executive (president).
    So like the US Supreme Court then?

    Also, would you get rid of the monarchy and the state religion?

  4. #4
    Member kafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    People's Democratic United Kingdom of Fascism
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HM View Post
    So like the US Supreme Court then?
    Not far off.

    Also, would you get rid of the monarchy and the state religion?
    Of course. Monarchy is despotism and religion is immoral.

    State-sanctioned and state-subsidised religion is especially dangerous, even if it looks like this:



    it's still collectivism, and control, and should be abandoned asap.

  5. #5
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kafir View Post
    Monarchy is despotism and religion is immoral.

    State-sanctioned and state-subsidised religion is especially dangerous
    I agree with you on the religion point but I'd probably keep the monarchy as long as it had no state-funding and no powers that other citizens do not possess. That way, despotism would be impossible unless the monarchy launched a coup (and let's face it, that's not happening any time soon).

  6. #6
    Member kafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    People's Democratic United Kingdom of Fascism
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HM View Post
    I agree with you on the religion point but I'd probably keep the monarchy as long as it had no state-funding and no powers that other citizens do not possess. That way, despotism would be impossible unless the monarchy launched a coup (and let's face it, that's not happening any time soon).
    Err...sorry to spell it out for you but if they have no power, and no privileges, then they aren't monarchs. And an executive branch would still be required.

    Plus, no privileges means that the FORMER monarchs would be subject to tax (estimated 2% & flat)

  7. #7
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    I would have as little "big government" as possible, much less MP's, give the power to the local councils and elected mayors.
    "One size fits all" policies do not worked as proved by the European Union.

    There would need to be some form of executive, as you say to ensure the seperation of powers and to keep checks and balances on the legislative and the judicary and to deal with major things like war.

    Keep the Lords as it is, (although im mulling over the thought of MP's electing them ) if we had them elected by the public the turn-out would be so low they would not really be able to even justify having a mandate.

  8. #8
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    The only argument i could think for keeping the Royal Family is that they generate a good bit of money through tourism, and that they are an non-political head of state so they make good ambassadors but all in all a head of state chosen by the hereditary principle is as you say not really libertarian and they are not needed.

  9. #9
    Member kafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    People's Democratic United Kingdom of Fascism
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revontulet View Post
    The only argument i could think for keeping the Royal Family is that they generate a good bit of money through tourism
    Tourists come to see the buildings and take pointless photographs. They don't get an opportunity to view the showbiz crew in person.

    they are an non-political head of state
    Nonsense. They may not vote, but they have royal prerogatives, and would use them to defend their own interests, make no mistake. She has used this countless times, often being encouraged to do so by others, which is an abuse of power and affront to democracy unrivalled in the Western world. Look into what has happened in New Zealand and other places.

    so they make good ambassadors
    Yeah, I can see your point. Our 'ambassadors' should be aloof, pompous inbreds with dysfunctional families and utterly corrupt..of course!

    but all in all a head of state chosen by the hereditary principle is as you say not really libertarian and they are not needed.
    Not really libertarian. Try "not even for a millisecond". Monarchy is despotism. We're one of only a handfuls of nations dumb enough to invite them back after having previously deposed them. Sickening.

  10. #10
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kafir View Post
    Tourists come to see the buildings and take pointless photographs. They don't get an opportunity to view the showbiz crew in person.
    True, but tourism is money at the end of the day. I agree that they should be abolished.

    I am also curious as to know other libertarians position on the minimum wage, there is a strong economic argument to abondon it as it is creating unemployment.

    But if a libertarian government (or even the tories) ever got into power and abolished the min. wage, what would happen, they would lose alot of support for a start, have the unions up in arms and alot of flak from the left wing groups.

    In reality, could abolishing the min. wage ever be acheived and/or is it even a good thing to do?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •