Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I'd broadly agree with both of those assessments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
Conservatives are libertarian?!? They may well advertise so, but they are very much authoritarian. They were the party who first mooted ID cards, who introduced the draconian police powers and public order laws. They are all in favour of the liberty of rich people doing what they want with their money, but beyond that - no way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
sure they are not a libertarian party, there is an authoritarian theme to Tory politics just as there is a libertarian theme that derives from the Whig rump that joined the Tories back in the day, but they are libertarian party insomuch as it exists in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
labour should defer to no-one when it comes to pushing ID cards and public order laws.
but more importantly; labour also define the authoritarian genre of british politics by introducing legislation and regulation at a phenomenal rate, and justifying the intrusion into individual behaviour by citing the benefit of the many.
Errr...not quite.Quote:
but they are libertarian party insomuch as it exists in the UK.
http://lpuk.org/
I like what they are saying. A lot. :yes:
To all those saying to Tories aren't Libertarian, I'm pretty certain the US Republican party is Libertarian, and look how supposedly "right wing" they are. Libertarianism holds very different values from modern "liberalism". A "libertarian" set of principles are based on aspects such as the upholding of individual rights, separation of religion from the sate and small government. Starting to see the difference now?
i agree with what you say, but would argue that given the UK's FPTP system and their electoral percentage they simply don't count as part of the active fabric of british politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
The Patriot Act was a great example of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
I got 80% on their test. Obviously, the first and second points were "illiberal", but then again, I am obviously a Liberatarian Socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
you mean the legislation that was rushed into place once the american government browned their pants after realising that crazy nutcases with big bushy beards were quite happy knocking yanky sky-scrapers down, while they were full of people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
not defending the patriot act by any means, but it could reasonably be viewed as a product of its time, just saying.
20% I loved how they told me why my opinions were wrong. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Your ResultsQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Well done!
You scored 90%
You are a liberal
--------------------------------
We should raise taxes on the rich so we can redistribute wealth to the poor?
Your answer was liberal
It is illiberal for people to be taxed at a different rate based on their income. Also rich people are the most mobile members of society. If they are over-taxed they will simply move themselves, their assets and capital offshore. Which will in turn decrease investment in the country.
--------------------------------
We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was liberal
The minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.
--------------------------------
The state should bailout large corporations in financial distress?
Your answer was liberal
This is an illiberal incursion on the free market — at the taxpayer's expense. No company should ever receive a taxpayer backed bailout. It encourages bad financial practices and corruption between the state, corporations and unions.
--------------------------------
It should be illegal for members of the public to own guns?
Your answer was liberal
In a liberal country people can protect themselves as they see fit. Remember if someone owns a gun it does not mean they will murder anyone. In addition it is very dangerous for a people to allow their state to have a monopoly over weaponry and therefore force.
--------------------------------
People who hold racist or extreme views should be allowed to publicly express their ideas?
Your answer was liberal
To not would be a gross and illiberal infringement on freedom of speech. And it sets a dangerous precedent for further reducing freedom of speech. It must be noted that defining things as extreme or dangerous is a purely subjective activity. Therefore the state will only define things as extreme if they pose a threat to it. But not necessarily to the people.
--------------------------------
The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was liberal
In a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.
--------------------------------
It is wrong for the police to retain the DNA of anyone not serving a prison sentence?
Your answer was liberal
There is no reason why in a liberal society that the state should be allowed to steal the property of a person when they have not been convicted of any crime or are currently serving a prison sentence.
--------------------------------
The state should ban people from watching violent pornography?
Your answer was liberal
This is an illiberal incursion on freedom of thought. It is not the business of the state to involve itself in the sexual preferences of consenting adults.
--------------------------------
It is wrong for democratic nations to overthrow foreign dictators?
Your answer was illiberal
It is illiberal, and a sign of gross arrogance, for one state to impose their will on another in this way. These issues are for the people of said state to resolve themselves with their leader(s).
--------------------------------
Free market capitalism should be forced on other nations to help create a better world?
Your answer was liberal
It is illiberal for one state to impose their way of life on another. A liberal foreign policy involves free trade with all willing participants. It does not involve forcing states to behave in a certain way if they do not wish to.
As I recall the chaps that "knocked down the skyscrapers" were for the most part clean shaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
they were in disguise, pretending to be normal people. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
Some questions are rather biased.
"Bailout" corporations implies throwing money at them. Purchasing equity at rock bottom rates can be good - Quatar made $1 Billion from Barclay's in less than a year.
And the gun ownership question well, the devil is in the detail. Purchasing a gatling gun from the corner shop is different to a Farmer owning a shotgun locked in his shed.
Police not retaining DNA unless the person has a prison sentence again is odd. Surely a better endpoint is if the person was convicted, and the nature of the crime - especially if it is related to violence.
~:smoking:
You could argue that they should have records of everyones DNA, as it is only used when coming in contact to a crime-scene and they want to match and pair examples up. Thus, you only need to worry if you are a rapist or commit violent crimes.
But that is a devils advocate.
...?Quote:
We should raise taxes on the rich so we can redistribute wealth to the poor?
Your answer was liberal
It is illiberal for people to be taxed at a different rate based on their income. Also rich people are the most mobile members of society.
...
We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was liberal
The minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.
...
The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was liberal
In a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.
wazzup?
Drugs policy is an aspect of social policy, and how you deal with it is influenced by you philosophy of the social responsibility of the state. If the role of the executive is to rule and not to perform social care then you simply identify the fatally harmful drugs, ban them, and imprison people for breaking the law the same as you would for anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose you identify those drugs most socially harmful, control them and put people who break the law into some form of social program.
The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.
When they use the word "Liberal" they mean what you would consider "Libertarian", preferenceing personal freedom over collective society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
If the past 2 pages are any example of the forthcoming campaign, I feel sorry for our Brit friends and their fellow voters/TV viewers; what dreadfully tedious stuff to have to endure. Where are the hookers, the love-children, the corruption, the smokey back-room deals, the pay-offs... you know: the scandal(!) ?
Or if your in Canada the PM's shutting down of parliament over the phone with the GG. And announcing it on the same day as the olympic hockey team and hoping know one will kick up a big stinck about it.
Well, a couple of things. The executive is not to rule or perform social care, it is more of an administration, more of checking the cogs are turning correctly and applying oil where needed, and performing upgrades and reform to produce a better functioning machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
As for drugs, on one hand you have those which are "socially harmful" (whatever that means) and imprision people who use them. Then the alternative of controling these and putting people into social programs. The most amusing thing about this statement, is that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug, so look at where that takes us. You also miss something out, why are the users the one who should go into prison? The users suffer the negative effects as it is, and you can take a large amount of drugs "safely". Only social would be in schools where they should teach you what drugs do, purpose behind them, and even safety tips. Decriminalise the use of people taking them, and only crack down on those selling such drugs, and have them only able to go through medical channels and purposes. Such a system is far more effective in examples seen in places such as Portugal.
Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian), while a similar system under a more liberal system would be the social programs (social-authoritarian). The liberatarian would be far closer to what I said with very minimal laws and regulation.
because in Britain we have the concept of legal responsibility, something assumed at adulthood provided the individual is of sound mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
that is a very poor definition of authoritarian, when used to distinguish it from libertarian, and really has no relevance.
That's what gets me about your statement. A Libertarian government wouldn't care what people do to their bodies with drugs. Yet, the Conservative Party retains a reactionary policy of the criminalisation of various lethal and non-lethal drugs, and their abuses. That isn't libertarian is any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Labour believes this, yet they follow the same policies as the Tories.Quote:
On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose
Both are liberal parties on a macro-view (as opposed to Communist/Fascist parties) but neither of them are Lolbertarian.Quote:
The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.
but to the extent that libertarian politics exist in british politics the conservatives are the more libertarian, because they introduce:
> lesser number of restrictive legislative acts
> have less emphasis on using legislation to enforce social aims
That's wildly hypothetical, since the Tories aren't in power and lack the ability to pass legislation, and thy historically have a tendency to like stick their noses in where they're not wanted in order to prevent moral decay and "Broken Britain"
Another half-hearted attempt to unseat Gordon Brown is launched.
Whilst the Labour party clearly knows it is doomed with GB leading it, they simply can't seem to discover the ruthlessness to dispatch him. Amusing to watch them try - thereby demonstrating a fundamental cowardice that probably proves he's actually the best they've got.
You should advise them for Beskar from the .ORG to take over. Then I will sweep out the ranks and replace everyone with people with spirit, idealism, and the drive and the initiative the country needs. :egypt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
nothing speculative about it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
look at the rate of new legislation created each year in the last 12 years, and compare it to the rate of new legislation created each year in the preceding 12 years
interesting post on the gathering forces forces of the left, collating their strength to stop the right in the forthcoming titanic battle of ideologies:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...ndon-with-ken/
i really don't understand how these people hold any traction in Britain.Quote:
How to stop the Right – loonies, commies, Stalinists gather in London with Ken
Later on this month I’m going to a conference hosted by Boris Johnson in which he’s invited various allies and friends to discuss how to “stop the Left” this year. Among the speakers will be General Pinochet’s former ambassador to Britain, a Christian journalist who describes non-believers as “cattle”, another journalist who took payment from Nazi Germany, a BNP member, and Polish political leaders from a group who have refused to attend Holocaust Memorial Day in the past.
Oh sorry, that was just a really weird dream – says a lot about my inner psyche. But this isn’t:
Ken Livingstone invites you to Progressive London conference:
A progressive agenda to stop the right in 2010
Among those speaking at this laugh-a-minute conference will be:
Mehdi Hasan – Senior Editor (Politics), New Statesman
“The Kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”
Richard Gott – writer
“I took red gold, even if it was only in the form of expenses for myself and my partner. That, in the circumstances, was culpable stupidity, though at the time it seemed more like an enjoyable joke”.
Yes, hilarious to the millions of people imprisoned in Soviet Russia. Just hilarious.
Kate Hudson – Chair, CND
No, not Goldie Hawn’s daughter, but rather the CND activist who’s also a member of the Communist party of Great Britain, and the woman who invited the Iranian ambassador to the CND conference to defend Iran’s policies.
Professor Tariq Ramadan
European Islam’s leading thinker, so progressive he’s called for a “moratorium” on the stoning of adulterers.
Dr Abdul Bari – Muslim Council of Britain
Won’t this party clash with Holocaust Memorial Day? Oh, never mind.
Samuel Moncada – Venezuelan Ambassador
How to stop the Right? El Presidente Hugo has a few ideas.
George Galloway MP
Friend of the centre-left, pro-gay rights, Hamas and the über-liberal Islamic Republic of Iran.
Karen Stalbow – Shelter
A charity that is 21 per cent taxpayer-funded. I hope the Conservatives remember that come May.
What a strange and awkward event – feminists, gay rights activists and greenies next to supporters and allies of some of the most brutal and repressive religious movements around. It reminds me of the Onion’s headline: “Japan Forms Alliance With White Supremacists in Well-Thought-Out Scheme”.
This is only true of the Cabinet, the "Executive" includes all the operative organs of government, certainly the Police and Armed Forces, and the Courts (but not the Judges), it also arguably includes the NHS, and definately Social Services and the Education Authorities. Those organs are currently used to enact social reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
If you want to ban alchohol, I'll go along with that. I'll miss the occasional pint of Ale, but I won't cry myself to sleep over it.Quote:
As for drugs, on one hand you have those which are "socially harmful" (whatever that means) and imprision people who use them. Then the alternative of controling these and putting people into social programs. The most amusing thing about this statement, is that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug, so look at where that takes us.
Only because use is illigal; if you break a law you should recieve the punishment that law carries. This is a wider problem with society; punishments are inconsistantly enforced. This is true even of assualts and thefts.Quote:
You also miss something out, why are the users the one who should go into prison?
I am not in favour of decriminalisation. If it is illegal to sell them it should be illegal to take them, also... if it is illegal to sell them it must be illegal to buy them. Ergo, anyone in posession should be prosecuted for procurement. The position is legally inconsistant and therefore unenforcable.Quote:
The users suffer the negative effects as it is, and you can take a large amount of drugs "safely". Only social would be in schools where they should teach you what drugs do, purpose behind them, and even safety tips. Decriminalise the use of people taking them, and only crack down on those selling such drugs, and have them only able to go through medical channels and purposes. Such a system is far more effective in examples seen in places such as Portugal.
I'm not going to claim that drugs policy under the Conservatives are Libertarian on drugs, but conversely Libertarianism has a very strong moral streak (it started with non-conformist Christians in Britain), and one issue does not make a part either authoritarian or Libitarian.Quote:
Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian), while a similar system under a more liberal system would be the social programs (social-authoritarian). The liberatarian would be far closer to what I said with very minimal laws and regulation.
Also, the Conservatives pass laws and then enforce the punishment, and this is Libertarian because it stems from every criminal being treated the same under the Law. I.e., regardless of the Law you break you recieve the full force of the Law. Labour's current practice of not prosecuting under the Law is inconsistant and favours certain groups; therefore not Libertarian.
One issue, see above to Beskar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Labour banned hunting, Labour issues fixed-penalty notices for bizare things (feeding pigeons). Fixed penalty notices are Authoritarian, they place power in the hands of an Officer of the Executive, and deny recourse to due process and the Judiciary in the first instance.Quote:
Labour believes this, yet they follow the same policies as the Tories.
Looking at Labour today, I no longer believe they are "macro" Libertarian, we have overtaken almost every country in terms of survaillence and detention of unconvicted citizens.Quote:
Both are liberal parties on a macro-view (as opposed to Communist/Fascist parties) but neither of them are Lolbertarian.
It reminds of that in law, it is illegal to commit suicide. Hate to think of what punishments for them Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla would come up with just because it is illegal.
Also, you say that it is illegal to sell something, so it should be illegal to have it/use it. That is just crazy talk. It would be illegal for a hotdog stall owner to sell hotdogs topped with arsenic, but why should it be illegal for some one to put an arsenic topping on their own food and be punished by the law, in a way the hotdog stall owner would be punished. It just speaks of idiocy. There are reasons as to why the hotdog owner cannot sell an arsenic topping, due to health and safety, but why should it be illegal for some one, with full facts of the risks and of this, to decide to have it? Argubly, the punishment is already recieved from doing that action, having the law laid down on top is just pointless.