| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: Libertarians |
 |
|
Anyone out there in Korea interested in libertarianism or consider themselves to be a classical liberal (ie not someone like Hillary Clinton, but someone who digs Adam Smith et al)? While I am not a member of any group or party, I would be interested in discussing ideas of free markets, small government and individual liberty with other like-minded individuals. I'm thinking a yahoo discussion group or something similar, what do you all think.
Cheers
Jaga |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
funplanet
Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Location: The new Bucheon!
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lifetime libertarian here.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've progressed from marxist in my late teens to the centre and now increasingly my ideas are being influenced by classical liberal ideas. I'm looking for people to discuss ideas with, bounce problems off and the like. Hopefully there are more about and we can set something up.
Cheers
Jaga |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with classical liberal ideas being applied to today's world economy is that there are way too many barriers to entry, and way too much protection of major industries and corporations.
It is a fine ideal for the small market in a village, but the corporate world is not an even playing field with equal entry, access to information and to markets. The rules just don't aply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyhanlon
Joined: 09 Nov 2003
Location: 서울
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wouldn't it be better if you spoke to people who disagreed with you? better to challenge your opinion than reinforce it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
funplanet
Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Location: The new Bucheon!
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
funny thing is that I've had several friend who have moved from pseudo "Marxism"  to libertarianism....they turn into Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson fans...and Ann Rynd...
ever read Ann Rynd??? awesome stuff...good place to start
and Milton Friedman for economics (one of my heroes)
I'm doing my dissertation on poverty (in America)....heart of the thesis is that poverty is fundamentally a result of a person's behaviour....perhaps if financial responsibility was taught in the public school system there there just might be a shift from poverty upwards...well, I believe there would be but that is for another discussion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| funplanet wrote: |
funny thing is that I've had several friend who have moved from pseudo "Marxism" to libertarianism....they turn into Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson fans...and Ann Rynd...
ever read Ann Rynd??? awesome stuff...good place to start
and Milton Friedman for economics (one of my heroes)
I'm doing my dissertation on poverty (in America)....heart of the thesis is that poverty is fundamentally a result of a person's behaviour....perhaps if financial responsibility was taught in the public school system there there just might be a shift from poverty upwards...well, I believe there would be but that is for another discussion... |
I have issues with Rand, or should I say the freakish cult that has grown up around objectivism. In particular, the notion of evasiveness being used to the effect that all critics are labled liars or mental defectives. That and the fact that under Leonard Peikoff, the movement has become a closed system, unchallengable, pretty much like the catholic church. Oh, and Galt's 200 page speach sent me to sleep.
Cheers
Jaga |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
The problem with classical liberal ideas being applied to today's world economy is that there are way too many barriers to entry, and way too much protection of major industries and corporations.
It is a fine ideal for the small market in a village, but the corporate world is not an even playing field with equal entry, access to information and to markets. The rules just don't aply. |
No, but that is not to say that these barriers can't be lowered allowing greater competition and broader market. The telecommunications industry in my native Australia is a prime example. Once upon a time it took 2 weeks and a great deal of pain to get a phone installed from the single provider, telecom. Service has picked up and prices are lower now competition is allowed. Of course there is still some interference in the market, but I would think that there is a need to reduce it based on the example. Its not only individuals who need weening off of welfare, but corporations too, in my opinion.
Cheers
Jaga |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| funplanet wrote: |
funny thing is that I've had several friend who have moved from pseudo "Marxism" to libertarianism....they turn into Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson fans...and Ann Rynd...
ever read Ann Rynd??? awesome stuff...good place to start
and Milton Friedman for economics (one of my heroes)
I'm doing my dissertation on poverty (in America)....heart of the thesis is that poverty is fundamentally a result of a person's behaviour....perhaps if financial responsibility was taught in the public school system there there just might be a shift from poverty upwards...well, I believe there would be but that is for another discussion... |
I concur, however, would there not also be structural variables in place that also cause poverty? For instance, in Germany and France, the government's refusal to reform labour laws keep unemployment high, limiting an individuals ability to find that crucial first job. Likewise, cultures of welfare dependency may give people the idea that its easier to stay on the dole than work.
I'm also interested in libertarianism as social theory. Having come from the 'reformist left' and working in a university where their policies were implemented, I can see nothing but social division comming from the kind of social paternalism they practise. Likewise, the conservative right seeks to control peoples thinking and limit actions of free individuals. I think this is where the libertarianism comes into its own, giving people the right to chose (and more importantly, not to choose) in these issues.
Cheers
Jaga |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
As with conservatism and liberalism there are certain aspects of libertaranism I appreciate while other aspects I don't like. I have a hard time embracing a single outlook completely because of the dissonance between theory and its practical application--it can be hard to fit a theory neatly and consistently into so many disparate aspects of life.
There are always aspects to each system that I don't like, such as the liberal view on taxation, the conservative view on abortion or the libertarian view on drug policy. But I do think libertarianism has a lot to offer even though it gets shunted to the background of political thought.
I hate to be cynical, but I still believe the perfect system will always look better on paper than in real life, with the reach exceeding the grasp.
jaganath69 wrote:
| Quote: |
| I have issues with Rand, or should I say the freakish cult that has grown up around objectivism. |
I agree with that. I'm more in line with practical, small scale libertarianism than the Great Big Answer For Everything that objectivism claims. I also tend to distrust thinkers whose theories have become dogma amongst its followers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cthulhu wrote: |
As with conservatism and liberalism there are certain aspects of libertaranism I appreciate while other aspects I don't like. I have a hard time embracing a single outlook completely because of the dissonance between theory and its practical application--it can be hard to fit a theory neatly and consistently into so many disparate aspects of life.
There are always aspects to each system that I don't like, such as the liberal view on taxation, the conservative view on abortion or the libertarian view on drug policy. But I do think libertarianism has a lot to offer even though it gets shunted to the background of political thought.
I hate to be cynical, but I still believe the perfect system will always look better on paper than in real life, with the reach exceeding the grasp.
jaganath69 wrote:
| Quote: |
| I have issues with Rand, or should I say the freakish cult that has grown up around objectivism. |
I agree with that. I'm more in line with practical, small scale libertarianism than the Great Big Answer For Everything that objectivism claims. I also tend to distrust thinkers whose theories have become dogma amongst its followers. |
Likewise, I gave up looking for a meta-theory after a pol sci degree and being active in politics back home. I don't believe taxes could be abolished, everything farmed out to private enterprise and small government accomplished overnight. I'd rather see a gradual working towards practical market solutions rather than exctreme shock therapy. Again, as I said though, there is more to this than just the economics. Being allowed to live your own life as you wish is what REALLY appeals to me.
Cheers
Jaga |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
jaganath69 wrote:
| Quote: |
Being allowed to live your own life as you wish is what REALLY appeals to me.
|
Amen, brother. That's one aspect where liberalism and conservatism both need a solid kick in the ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gmat
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am a libertarian and would recommend reading everything by Hayek if you haven't already. Also his mentor Von Mises.
I am not surprised the Desultude completely misses the point in her argument. There are barriers to entry BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENTS and they are the problem to establishing effective free trade that would benefit the world's poorer nations.
True Libertarianism is simply a belief in maximum freedom in all aspects of life - personal, economic and political.
Cthulhu: Although I really would not like the consequences of liberalized drug laws, people should have the freedom to do what they want, including the freedom to F up, as long as they are not harming others or breaking laws. But such freedom entails being responsible for the consequences of your actions. You can not have freedom of choice without responsibility for those choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you're young and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you're old and STILL a liberal, you have no BRAIN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gmat wrote:
| Quote: |
| Cthulhu: Although I really would not like the consequences of liberalized drug laws, people should have the freedom to do what they want, including the freedom to F up, as long as they are not harming others or breaking laws. But such freedom entails being responsible for the consequences of your actions. You can not have freedom of choice without responsibility for those choices. |
This is one of those areas where--for me--libertarianism is ideal but impractical. I differ with the Federal Government and latest drug czar (and those who came before) about drugs being a slippery slope. They are only a slippery slope if one allows them to be. There are soft drugs (marijuana, mushrooms, hash etc.) and there are hard drugs, and there is a huge difference between the two. Soft drugs are no worse than alcohol--in fact, they are far safer when taking into account drunk driving, bar fights, and violence in general.
That said, I'd love to leave it up to individual responsibility but people high on heroin, cocaine, PCP or similar hard drugs will do anything to feed their habit (particularly property crimes or robbery) and can be quite dangerous to the general population while high. Doesn't mean they are in every case or course, but one reads enough stories about people who are a danger to others (I couldn't care less if they are a danger to themselves) to come to the conclusion that there are things out there that people just can't handle, freedom to do so notwithstanding.
yaya wrote:
| Quote: |
If you're young and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you're old and STILL a liberal, you have no BRAIN. |
An oldie but a goodie. I wonder why it never mentions what happens to those (conservatives, presumably) who have a brain but still don't have a heart. I guess hearts aren't so important in the grand scheme of things.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
