Libertarian Party

[andyofborg]

Very true but what if the main parties all have fundamentally the same agenda.

 

if the population has pretty much the same agenda then there isn't necesarily a problem

 

if the agenda of the parties is widely different to that of the voting population then there is a serious issue which really, can only be resolved by starting new parties.

[I1L2T3]

if the population has pretty much the same agenda then there isn't necesarily a problem

 

if the agenda of the parties is widely different to that of the voting population then there is a serious issue which really, can only be resolved by starting new parties.

 

I agree. I think we're seeing a major divergence now. 70% of people want a say on Europe - all main parties have a policy to deny that. I think we will also see a divergence on the economy as the recession and cuts really kick in. As I see it none of the parties are fundamentally different in that area.

[76busroute]

Without the BBC our media would be totally dominated by the likes of Sky TV. Is that what you want?

 

 

It's not just about getting what I want. It might be better if we have a state washing machine licence whereby you have to buy a licenece every time you buy a washing machine and the money is used to fund a state washing powder and even if you want to buy washing powder not produced by the state you still have to pay for the licence.It's just wrong on prinicipal to fund a broadcasting coporation like that.. I don't really care about the consequences and if abolishing the bbc results in something I don't like then I'll just have to live with it. Let's not forget Rupert murdoch, for all his faults, isn't going round with a gun forcing people to pay for Sky. People are buying it 'cause they want it people who don't like him and what he does with his profits, of which btw I'm one just have to deal with it. It down to the liberal minded people to get their own t.v stn./s up and running to counter the right. I just think we should be doing that instead of pathetically relying on Auntie. Relying on Auntie giver them too much power and makes them insufferably smug 'cause they know that the bbc is all but a sacred cow.

[I1L2T3]

It's not just about getting what I want. It might be better if we have a state washing machine licence whereby you have to buy a licenece every time you buy a washing machine and the money is used to fund a state washing powder and even if you want to buy washing powder not produced by the state you still have to pay for the licence.It's just wrong on prinicipal to fund a broadcasting coporation like that.. I don't really care about the consequences and if abolishing the bbc results in something I don't like then I'll just have to live with it. Let's not forget Rupert murdoch, for all his faults, isn't going round with a gun forcing people to pay for Sky. People are buying it 'cause they want it people who don't like him and what he does with his profits, of which btw I'm one just have to deal with it. It down to the liberal minded people to get their own t.v stn./s up and running to counter the right. I just think we should be doing that instead of pathetically relying on Auntie. Relying on Auntie giver them too much power and makes them insufferably smug 'cause they know that the bbc is all but a sacred cow.

 

The washing machine comparison is invalid. Nobody reasonably expects the state to do their laundry. But most accept the idea of a state broadcaster.

 

The consequences of abolishing the BBC and handing all broadcasting to the private sector would a corporate dominated media because private media is advertising and sponsorship-driven. The vast majority of advertising is by corporate organisations many of which lean towards certain political parties. Right wingers hate the BBC because it prevents that happening. They hate it because it prevents us recieving a completely right wing message. They hate the pluralism the BBC helps bring to the table.

 

Be careful what you wish for. There's certainly a debate to be had about funding mechanisms but abolishing the state broadcaster would be a disasterous move.

[Tony]

Hmmmmm, we already pay health insurance. It's called NI and in terms of bang for buck it delivers very good health outcomes.

 

Private and semi-private systems are expensive. In Switzerland they have a system of private compulsory insurance and it costs about £600 a month for basic cover for a family of four, way way above what the average family pays in NI in the UK. The trade-off is even better health outcomes but boy do the Swiss pay for it. Got mates living over there now - £400 a month for an adult (with some add-ons like dental etc...)

I'm not quite getting which bit of paying the proper price and living longer and healthier it is that you're not happy with.

[donkey]

I'm not quite getting which bit of paying the proper price and living longer and healthier it is that you're not happy with.

 

Most people (nay, the vast majority of people) can't afford the figures he has mentioned.

 

Are you saying your health and longevity should be directly linked to how wealthy you are?

[Tony]

That's how it has always worked in the UK, which has one of the worst health services and worst national health in the developed world.

 

The richer you are, the more likely you are to be as healthy as in some of the other nations where they don't have a national health service - providing that you don't use the NHS.

[epiphany]

Libertarianism is a broad idea.

 

In the US, if someone says they are libertarian, it's assumed they are a pro-capitalist, "old right" conservative. This is actually quite a new definition of libertarian.

 

But in reality, libertarianism does not define which economic system you advocate, it just means you place individual liberty as of primary importance. It is the means by which this liberty is attained that libertarians disagree over.

 

Some believe free market capitalism and "negative liberty" are the ultimate means. Left libertarians believe in a more mutual, co-operative "positive liberty" approach.

 

Nye Bevan, for example, believed the NHS was a means of preserving individual liberty, because it removed the fear of losing your labour or home due to costly medical care. This is the "freedom from" libertarian perspective.

 

So like any other political ideology, it's not as cut and dry as how the term has come to be defined by the general populous.

[I1L2T3]

I'm not quite getting which bit of paying the proper price and living longer and healthier it is that you're not happy with.

 

It's a trade-off between what we can reasonably afford as a nation and the outcomes we want.

 

We spend 9% of GDP, the Swiss spend 11%. They are a richer nation and they spend more but life expectanacy in the UK is not massively worse.

 

On the other hand the US spends 16% and has lower life expectancy than the UK.

 

For the amount we spend we get very good results with the current system.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

That's how it has always worked in the UK, which has one of the worst health services and worst national health in the developed world.

 

The richer you are, the more likely you are to be as healthy as in some of the other nations where they don't have a national health service - providing that you don't use the NHS.

Were the NHS a country, it would be in the top ten by GDP; and it's in the top ten employers in the world.