[Politics] How have you political views changed during your life?

[looney]

I'm picking you up on one specific point which you have failed to answer on three occasions. You said it has ALWAYS succeeded. I'm asking you how you managed to come to that conclusion. Try to justify things like the global financial crisis, the amount of control in economies that are successful and the illiberal government controls in China that accompanied its economic success. If it ALWAYS succeeds it should be very easy to demonstrate. Or were you talking bollocks? Can you at least try to attempt this without being deliberately obtuse, throwing around false accusations of argumentative technique or copying and pasting from the dweebs you hang about on 4Chan with? Ta.

That a bit more succinct. Firstly I dont hang on 4 chan, people there dump the good stuff into groups on facebook, reddit and other sites, 4 chan is more of a hub to destroy left wing culture, mess with google and facebook etc..

Yes it always succeeds in the sense it works. The arguments against tend to be moral objections, lack of equity etc. Because it works doesn't mean here are no negative consequences or no one should disprove.

As for your arguements, Financial crisis is Government failure for under-writing the US housing market. China has little of nothing to do with Libertarianism as was your other example.

90% of Failure is Government failure, usually wrong intervention or regulating. Market Failure is where a Market fails to function, this is a seperate issue from Libertarianism. Not delivering the goods is not the same as preventing people having the goods.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

I've voted for all three major parties in general elections, most recently voting Liberal Democrats last year.

I'm naturally a touch right of centre, I guess, but really not very much.

I'm just pleased that I am able to form a judgement each time based on what is going on at the time and those involved. It saddens me to see those that jut put their X in the same box every time, and are so blinkered that they can't even consider an alternative, whether they'd actually go for it or not.

Apart from being a touch left of centre that is exactly where I am too.
But unless the Tories change for the better I would find it near on impossible to vote for them after Cameron and May.
Cameron was the worst PM since Neville Chamberlain and as for May, she is just shockingly weak and very nasty.

 

[Weststander]

Apart from being a touch left of centre that is exactly where I am too.
But unless the Tories change for the better I would find it near on impossible to vote for them after Cameron and May.
Cameron was the worst PM since Neville Chamberlain and as for May, she is just shockingly weak and very nasty.

I rated and still do the Cameron premiership. Whatever caused the financial crisis and people will argue about that forever, it was there, and the Coalition Government stabilised the economy and was actually quite liberal. To make a Coalition work for 5 years took compromise from both sides, and due to the lack of an overall majority, policies were more conciliatory.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I have a social conscience and have always considered myself a "natural labour voter", although in European terms probably a Socsl Democrat. I wouldn't at the moment, though, vote Labour because i dont like the way they are going. That is not necessarily anti Corbyn.

At the moment I would tend to vote Lib Dem because they are generally the closest to how I feel about things, particularly Europe.

In 46 years of being of voting age, I have never voted Conservative and doubt if I ever will. There are some conservative MPs I quite like, but there are plenty that I would not trust as far as I could throw them.

 

[5ways]

Voted Green in 2010, wouldn't consider it now.

 

[Bozza]

I rated and still do the Cameron premiership. Whatever caused the financial crisis and people will argue about that forever, it was there, and the Coalition Government stabilised the economy and was actually quite liberal. To make a Coalition work for 5 years took compromise from both sides, and due to the lack of an overall majority, policies were more conciliatory.

Agree on May - a truly dreadul leader who almost makes Gordon Brown look good.

I'm less inclined to agree with you on Cameron, although I guess I'm basing a large amount of that on the relative success of the coalition. Cameron with a majority would clearly have been a different thing entirely.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Then you've not met [MENTION=277]looney[/MENTION] since he said "Or your not thinking properly or not listening to what people are saying. Bottom line is hard boiled socialism in the form of communism has always failed, libertarianism as expressed in freer markets, speech and societies has always succeeded". If not a single whole nation has adopted the philosophy then how on earth can it have been demonstrated to have succeeded? Market based economies dominate the Western world for sure but none is libertarian and many are not even neo-liberal. How has it succeeded in the US the "land of the free" when Trump has to round up immigrants and impose 25% tariffs? Do we grade the UK as having succeeded more than say, Sweden? Has the introduction of the market in China given them freedom of speech? All that can be demonstrably stated is that communism has largely, but not totally, been abandoned (thank Christ, it's awful) and that countries that were already developed and wealthy use some form of regulated markets to develop wealth and promote meritocracy. But "society" exists everywhere, again thank Christ.

There is American Libertarianism and there is European style Adam Smith Libertarianism. That being in part due to the way the US was formed and how because of that many American citizens always held a great distrust of Governments.

It seems those who rail hardest against Libertarianism are those who want to hold the power and control the population the most. Sound like the major parties?

The reason why laissez faire isn't popular with many Governments is because it means the crooked politicians can't make their millions from corrupt and biased operations. Those war warmongering Clintons and their ilk are the reason why it's a good idea.

Libertarianism is basically socially left in many ways and conservative financially. That people associate right wing kooks with it highlights that those who seem most against it (the left) actually have zero idea what it's views actually are.

Below are examples of nations employing "the most" laissez-faire like style in how it functions.

For Europe the “laissez-faire list” is led by Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Estonia and the UK.

https://econlife.com/2014/05/laissez-faire-countries/

Then when you cross check with the corruption perception surprise surprise all of those nations which employ a form of laissez faire are actually very high up in the least corrupt stakes.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017


So the correlation between the Libertarian philosophy and that of less corruption of government is there in example.

 

[Crackpot]

Reminds me of a maxim I heard on US cable television,quoted during an election period :

"If you don't vote socialist when you are in your twenties,you don't have a heart.
If you don't vote conservative when you are in your forties,you don't have a brain."

 

[lasvegan]

Reminds me of a maxim I heard on US cable television,quoted during an election period :

"If you don't vote socialist when you are in your twenties,you don't have a heart.
If you don't vote conservative when you are in your forties,you don't have a brain."

Sounds like Winston Churchill to me...

 

[pastafarian]

I have a social conscience and have always considered myself a "natural labour voter", although in European terms probably a Socsl Democrat. I wouldn't at the moment, though, vote Labour because i dont like the way they are going. That is not necessarily anti Corbyn.

At the moment I would tend to vote Lib Dem because they are generally the closest to how I feel about things, particularly Europe.

In 46 years of being of voting age, I have never voted Conservative and doubt if I ever will. There are some conservative MPs I quite like, but there are plenty that I would not trust as far as I could throw them.

I have a social conscience and have always considered myself a natural Tory voter,
I would say anyone that takes the effort to vote already has a social conscience as it is merely identifying the problems and injustices of your society and taking the responsibility to put your voice in action on the ballot paper or elsewhere.
Its not something that can be owned by one political party against another.
We do though throughout society have differing opinions on how to solve these problems, hence differing political parties across a wide spectrum.
Having a social conscience doesn’t push you toward one party more than another, and im not suggesting you are saying that as obviously that would be an attention seeking crass claim worthy of the student style of politics the majority of us cringe at .

 

[BadFish]

I have a social conscience and have always considered myself a natural Tory voter,
I would say anyone that takes the effort to vote already has a social conscience as it is merely identifying the problems and injustices of your society and taking the responsibility to put your voice in action on the ballot paper or elsewhere.
Its not something that can be owned by one political party against another.
We do though throughout society have differing opinions on how to solve these problems, hence differing political parties across a wide spectrum.
Having a social conscience doesn’t push you toward one party more than another, and im not suggesting you are saying that as obviously that would be an attention seeking crass claim worthy of the student style of politics the majority of us cringe at .

Spot on pasta, the vast majority of voters have a social conscience.

In my least optimistic moments though I start to doubt if many politicians do though.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I have a social conscience and have always considered myself a natural Tory voter,
I would say anyone that takes the effort to vote already has a social conscience as it is merely identifying the problems and injustices of your society and taking the responsibility to put your voice in action on the ballot paper or elsewhere.
Its not something that can be owned by one political party against another.
We do though throughout society have differing opinions on how to solve these problems, hence differing political parties across a wide spectrum.
Having a social conscience doesn’t push you toward one party more than another, and im not suggesting you are saying that as obviously that would be an attention seeking crass claim worthy of the student style of politics the majority of us cringe at .

I agree. That "and" in the first sentence was not meant to imply any correlation between the two.

 

[pastafarian]

Spot on pasta, the vast majority of voters have a social conscience.

In my least optimistic moments though I start to doubt if many politicians do though.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The politicians from Corbyn to Cable to May and those underneath do have a social conscience, we can disagree on the formula for getting there but i believe they are all genuine in their wish to make thinks better,unfortunately we have been framed by the media to pick up on every single mistake and make widespread judgements on personality.

Its a shame when all the voter wants is honesty, action and results no matter who is charge

 

[Guinness Boy]

There is American Libertarianism and there is European style Adam Smith Libertarianism. That being in part due to the way the US was formed and how because of that many American citizens always held a great distrust of Governments.

It seems those who rail hardest against Libertarianism are those who want to hold the power and control the population the most. Sound like the major parties?

The reason why laissez faire isn't popular with many Governments is because it means the crooked politicians can't make their millions from corrupt and biased operations. Those war warmongering Clintons and their ilk are the reason why it's a good idea.

Libertarianism is basically socially left in many ways and conservative financially. That people associate right wing kooks with it highlights that those who seem most against it (the left) actually have zero idea what it's views actually are.

Below are examples of nations employing "the most" laissez-faire like style in how it functions.



https://econlife.com/2014/05/laissez-faire-countries/

Then when you cross check with the corruption perception surprise surprise all of those nations which employ a form of laissez faire are actually very high up in the least corrupt stakes.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017


So the correlation between the Libertarian philosophy and that of less corruption of government is there in example.

Well done for answering the question. Looney still hasn't. You and he are still contradicting each other by the way since he says the UK is in no way Libertarian. Not that that's a problem, plenty of the left disagree with each other all the time. The UK Labour party is a classic example.

But taking the UK as an example, whatever the transparency index says, the reputation of politicians is still trying to recover from the 2009 expenses scandal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-37061997

Meanwhile Ireland is slipping down the list and has been said to have one of the most corrupt police forces in the Western world

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/corruption-index-ireland-lags-behind-1.3402112

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pat-flanagan-ireland-most-corrupt-10132233

But perhaps the biggest challenge is simply that Index of Economic Freedom is produced under Adam Smith principles by a right wing think tank. Again China comes up here, since critics of the index have pointed out the poor performance in GDP terms of Switzerland against others including China. The way you measure "freedom" is necessarily nebulous and is therefore easy to tweak to get the result you need. And, again, I mention Sweden which is in the green but has some truly staggering levels of taxation - a principle Libertarians hate. Lebanon, however, is right down the list and was probably the closest thing to Libertarian government before the civil war - under the Maronites weapons were common place and pretty much no one paid taxes. That didn't work out so well.

 

[pastafarian]

Libertarianism is an ethos deployed democratic by Governments.

Indeed,im not sure some people understand this.

 

[BadFish]

The politicians from Corbyn to Cable to May and those underneath do have a social conscience, we can disagree on the formula for getting there but i believe they are all genuine in their wish to make thinks better,unfortunately we have been framed by the media to pick up on every single mistake and make widespread judgements on personality.

Its a shame when all the voter wants is honesty, action and results no matter who is charge

I would agree that they have a social conscience but for me it is too far down a great many politician's priorities list. Agree about the media but would also lay the blame for this at the door of other 'team' politicians too.

Agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence and would give my X (or number 1, over here) to any politician who provides me with the hope of getting them. Sadly I usually go to the polls looking for the least worst candidate.

 

[Live by the sea]

Used to vote labour when it was a moderate party but now Corbyn and the hard left have taken over, I couldn’t in all conscience vote for them . I don’t believe any extreme views in politics are a good thing or helpful, hence I loath Corbyn and everything he stands for.

 

[Perkino]

Both Conservative and Labour parties are very weak currently. Neither seem to be in touch with the middle class working man which I would classify myself as being a teacher. I liked Tony Blair as a red leader but he spent too much money and I liked David Cameron as a blue but he tightened the finances available to schools. However both significantly better than our current choices.

If Clegg hadn't had sold his soul on tuition fees then I think the Lib Dems would be in a strong position and trying to make it a 3 horse race. I quite liked the coalition government meaning that the Conservatives had the Lib Dems as a sort of moral compass meaning we had mainly Conservative views and policies in place but only the ones that Lib Dems would agree on rather than the harshness we currently experience.

 

[pastafarian]

I've voted for all three major parties in general elections, most recently voting Liberal Democrats last year.

I'm naturally a touch right of centre, I guess, but really not very much.

I'm just pleased that I am able to form a judgement each time based on what is going on at the time and those involved. It saddens me to see those that jut put their X in the same box every time, and are so blinkered that they can't even consider an alternative, whether they'd actually go for it or not.

Did you vote Lib at the last one based on what was going on ie they were anti brexit, or was it more of a general world view compared to one policy?
I only ask as i remember a heated discussion between lib supporters on the radio with one saying if they stick to being stopping brexit they are toxic to other lib supporters. Difficult choice if you are focused on one thing and disagree with that one thing, which is fair to say what has focused the electorate somewhat recently.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Well done for answering the question. Looney still hasn't. You and he are still contradicting each other by the way since he says the UK is in no way Libertarian. Not that that's a problem, plenty of the left disagree with each other all the time. The UK Labour party is a classic example.


But taking the UK as an example, whatever the transparency index says, the reputation of politicians is still trying to recover from the 2009 expenses scandal.

That's a perks issue more than flat out corruption gone rife when compared to the billions other nations are involved in.

The index would reflect such a thing as an expenses scandal as being quite small fish in a big pond with the sums of money involved. Unlike US politics and many many other nations politicians a regular UK politician doesn't tend to leave politics as a multi multi millionaire because of their time in politics.

How is Nancy Pelosi the head of the US Democrats worth 100 million given the roles she's had in her working life?

There will always be elements of libertarian ideals present(even if people don't realise it). Often whistle blowers hold Libertarian beliefs. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are prime examples of this.

The UK has elements present simply because some of it's great minds from the past were the forefathers to the idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-37061997

Meanwhile Ireland is slipping down the list and has been said to have one of the most corrupt police forces in the Western world

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/corruption-index-ireland-lags-behind-1.3402112

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pat-flanagan-ireland-most-corrupt-10132233

But perhaps the biggest challenge is simply that Index of Economic Freedom is produced under Adam Smith principles by a right wing think tank. Again China comes up here, since critics of the index have pointed out the poor performance in GDP terms of Switzerland against others including China. The way you measure "freedom" is necessarily nebulous and is therefore easy to tweak to get the result you need. And, again, I mention Sweden which is in the green but has some truly staggering levels of taxation - a principle Libertarians hate. Lebanon, however, is right down the list and was probably the closest thing to Libertarian government before the civil war - under the Maronites weapons were common place and pretty much no one paid taxes. That didn't work out so well.

As I said, no Libertarian believes there would ever be a Libertarian utopia created. Unlike other political ideologies whose only goal is to use power and policy to bend the population to their will. As such their main aim today is to hold governments accountable and to reject the left/right dichotomy as being anything but the same freedom oppressing ideals wrapped up in different wolves clothes.

There's little to fear in a true Libertarians ideology because they won't want to bring in laws or policies that impinge on your freedoms or your choice of how to wish your life.

In any society it all begins at the individual and their choices in life. We make good choices or choices that don't impact others society is all the better for it.