Libertarianism

September 9, 2009 6 Comments

Here is where you can read my thoughts on Libertarianism: http://www.labourlist.org/liberty-still-belong-labour-julian-ware-lane

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with

6 Responses to Libertarianism

  1. OllyDeed says:
    September 9, 2009 at 11:07 am

    The problem with Libertarianism is that it is a contested concept that means different things to different people. Right wing Libertarians band the phrase around in an anti-state context whereas those of us on the left band it about to support state intervention. So who is right?

    Well who knows? Whatever you say Julian, will be shot down by right wing libertarians and we’ll shoot down the left wind libertarians. Talking about the individual subjects you brooch seperately rather than within the libertarian context is more helpful.

  2. barry walker says:
    September 9, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    In an ideal world the government would be liberal but i think we need to take one step back before we take two steps forward. I don’t believe anyone should be punished for crime as i believe in cause and effect (A child beaten by their parents turning to crime later on etc..). However probably due to Margaret Thatcher’s tenure, society has broken down losing family values, community spirit and creating more social inequality. This looks as if it will only get worse.

    If we were to change how our democracy worked and allowed governments to have 20 years in control they could do what is good for society and get to the roots of crime. As long as there is elections to win politicians will win votes by putting more police on the streets to please what the general public think is good for them. No party is going to win an election by setting something up they will only recieve praise for two generations later. You often hear party leaders preaching about the importance of family values and installing good social ethics but it is going to take something huge to reverse the damage that has been done.

    So as liberal in thought as I am the only solution for the greater good of society at the moment is to get even tougher on crime rather than social reform.

    To pick up on what you mentioned about speed cameras. As much as I hate paying fines it is pretty simple. The speed limits are there to protect people, especially in a residential zone, so if you are caught speeding you can’t really have any complaints.

    To quote “The ones getting caught are either those unfamiliar with the camera postions who may be driving safely but make a mistake”

    How can you be driving safely if you are speeding? haha, you may have control of the car but you do not have control of the child running into the road who has their chances of surviving the crash severely reduced if you are going 5 mile per hour quicker!

  3. IM4 says:
    September 10, 2009 at 9:31 am

    How do you know if you are going 5 miles an hour quicker? Answer, by constantly looking at the speedometer of your car. Whilst you are looking at the speedometer you are not concentrating on the road ahead and may miss that child running into the road.

    Some people advocate hidden speed cameras. A speed camera without a warning, to my mind, is bolting a stable door after the horse has bolted. A speeding driver may knock down a person and the only consolation to that is that he/she was caught on camera. Far better to ensure that drivers are slowing down and avoid causing the accidents in the first place than trying to surprise attack them.

    There was a survey done fairly recently where they took all road markings and road signs and speed limits completely from a particular blackspot. The result was a significant reduction in accidents. The reason is clear. Drivers are too distracted by so many demands on their attention. Speed cameras seem to exacerbate the situation.

    The trouble with tighter controls and more surveillance is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. We all wish to be safe, but if that means a severe restriction on movement or remaining free to go about ones business with controlled anonymity (i.e. oneself being the deciding factor on whether to disclose information about yourself), or having your every movement watched, then personally speaking, I would opt for the more dangerous option.

    1984 was a warning – not a manual.

  4. Bearded Socialist says:
    September 10, 2009 at 9:47 am

    Mr Ware-Lane, top work. I wanted to get involved on here because there will be less people than Labour List and we can hopefully involve in a discussion about it, rather than have idiots shouting.
    I am a liberal socialist, in that on social matters i am pretty much a libertarian. I believe in legalisation of drugs on the basis of liberty, although i am willing to balance this against the wider social picture.
    economically i’m very much a socialist.
    while I am in some senses a libertarian, i support the right of people to choose to loose some of their liberty (e.g. CCTV) to gain some. Classical liberalism, social contract etc.

    Speed cameras are such a devisive thing. To me, the people who argue against them tend to be the ones who support tougher sentancing and cracking down on crime. Other people’s crime. And that tends to be the libertarian case, to give themselves more liberty. In some cases it may mean liberty for others too, but they tend to see the the case for liberty through their own eyes.

    I support things like higher taxes (an infringement on economic liberty) in order to bring about things which enable liberty, such as healthcare or education.

  5. Julian Ware-Lane says:
    September 10, 2009 at 10:13 am

    I think the centre-left has a proud record on creating real liberty. Education and healthcare are two good examples, social housing is another. I am opposed to detention without trial, and think the current limit of 28 days is too much (I reluctantly accept that we live in extraordinary times and will accept 7 days) – quite why anyone thinks 42 days is a good idea is beyond me.

    I am not sure about drug legalisation. Here is a good example of where a public debate may be helpful.

    Clearly though, for the right to claim ownership of libertarianism is a joke.

  6. Bearded Socialist says:
    September 10, 2009 at 10:33 am

    Detention without trial is a tough one. How does one justify letting a terrorist run free to the families of those killed.
    This is something I think people need to decide for themselves, ideally by referendum. There needs to be a debate on freedom against security, as there will be times when these two things are at odds.

    on drugs, I think marijuana should be on an equal footing to alcohol. Other, harder, drugs are a different matter. But I certainly find the histories of why they are illegal very interesting and illuminating. Reference opium and it’s illegality in America

Leave a comment