pouët.net

Yep, I never said it was Mr. Depp we're talking about. Some of them even had contracts for multiple countries and could choose whose flag to sail under depending on what ships they spotted & eventually fell out of fashion with the nations possibly partially exactly because they weren't really so controlled in their looting so it's still not like they were just fighting a war for a single country all the time.

While the romantic view created by literature, movies & games is for the most part fiction pirates can still be fascinating though. Some of the utilized a limited form of democracy at a time when that was rather unusual and not all of them looked like the image skrebbel posted (see blackbeard) although of course the popular image is just as distorted as the cowboy image on the whole.

Still, this all has fairly little to do with the pirate party whose choice of name and symbols has been caused by the fact that the copyright holders began using the word 'pirate' of copyright infringers at one point and the original pirate party founders saw this as an opportunity. As I said I am not even aware of them using the skull and crossbones anywhere and even then it's far-fetched to see any connection.

Finland recently had a run of rings adorned by a swastika as the symbol was used by the finnish air force starting from 1918 and *that* symbol has a lot of meanings beside the very well known one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Finnish

wait....why are we talking about pirates?

back to the original question
It would be neither good nor bad. Just more mediocrity.

I don't think it would make a difference to have a similar party in MY COUNTRY, running for national ELECTIONS. We already have several far left/right parties to chose from, each as impotent as the last.

The Bi-Partisan nature of modern democracy means that the Libertine Party faces the same hurdles that The Pirate Party, Green Party, Democratic Socialist Party, and indeed every minor/independent party around the world faces. Especially 'single-policy parties' like the Pirate Party.

Very few people would vote for an independent in the lower house of parliament because their prescence in the political system would be so insignifigant as to be completely ineffective, unless maybe they formed a coalition with a major party, in which case one may as well vote for the major party.

Maybe they could get one or two members into the upper house, to vote against certain legislation. Some independent parties have been able to 'carve themselves a niche' in this area, especially environmental parties. But even then they only hold the 'deciding vote'. If the major parties are unanimous against them then too bad.

That said, I have little faith in the modern democratic process, certainly not enough to be motivated to vote. So it would all make very little difference to me. So my feelings could only be described as indifferent.

It's ironic that I just spent so much time expressing my indifference.

It took four steps:
-Libertine Party
-'Extreme' political parties
-Pirate Party
-Johnny Dep.

Well, neoliberalism is an economic philosophy, libertarianism is much more than that. And it's not that neoliberalism is just a subset of libertarianism, either. Libertarians have principal issues with the European Union, for example, whereas most neoliberals approve of a centralised European economy and power structure. Even to the extent there's some overlap, there's much more going on in the world than neoliberal tendencies here and there. In fact the overall trend in recent years has been a shift towards centralisation, totalitarianism and expanding government influence.

And consider that in libertarian thinking there's no such thing as "too big to fail". As recent bail-outs of failing businesses in many countries show, there are very fuzzy lines between big business and big government at the moment. So the system that's been failing badly recently is hardly libertarian in any meaningful sense.



As long as some government exists to protect citizens from force and fraud, all that those evil corporations can do is try to persuade you that product A is better than product B, and they'll be under constant pressure not to stretch the truth when advertising. This leaves consumers free to make informed choices and to live with the consequences.

And that's a whole other kind of freedom than what social-liberal governments try to provide, which is more of a freedom from consequences (often achieved by limiting civil liberties so individuals can't make bad choices to begin with (and no, that's not a good idea)).



Then why do you not trust that people would spend money in a socially responsible manner if given the choice? Why must government step in and spend your money for you? And why do we need taxes specifically designed to regulate consumption patterns for environmental reasons etc.?



No, I don't want society to run like a circuit board at all, that's a disgusting metaphor. Society should be a collective of free-willed individuals, not "designed" in any way. Whether it runs efficiently or not is really besides the point.

Because people ignore externalities if given the possibility. And that pretty much sums up why libertarianism is flawed.

That's retarded. The definition of a society is a design for how individuals interact.



I find it hugely ironic that you bring the bail-outs into the mix, when it was the actions of so-called free-willed individuals, with huge corporate "I-only-care-about-me!" backing, that caused the financial crisis.

..and Preacher has sooo leading.

Why are you still going about this idiotic Adokism?

Libertarianism is as good idea as communism. People are stupid and selfish so it won't work. Get over it.

Some people are short-sighted and selfish, yes. I don't believe it has to be that way, but in the end it's irrelevant as I'd rather be allowed to make bad choices than not be allowed choices at all. And then there's the question of whether politicians, if you allow them to make all your decisions for you, would be that much better at it. Still, this boils down to the same argument. Liberal socialism: freedom of choice is dangerous because people might not end up not choosing The Right Things (as defined by the rulers).

By contrast, libertarianism: freedom of choice is essential, and if people make inefficient choices, then so be it. It's not the government's job to make society "work better" (to what end, one might ask), the government is there to enforce contracts, uphold the law and protect your rights.

No, for something to have a design, someone must have designed it, which implies top-down management and ordained purposes. Structure is not the same as design.

The bail-outs were brought into the mix to explain to farfar how neoliberalism is different from libertarianism. Libertarians would never agree to forcing taxpayers to sustain failing businesses. Ergo, it's not a free market (in the libertarian sense) that's failing, it's an unholy union of capitalism and socialism, something that could not have come about without governments being overly ambitious and eager to get in bed with private businesses to accomplish their unrealistic goals.

Doom: and what happens when the bad choices of others violate your chances to make your own choices, your livelihood, your health or even your life?

Choices such as?

I'm not saying libertarianism is an ideology for a neat, streamlined society which gives equal opportunities to all. That's not the point of it. It does, however, grant equal rights to all. You have basic protection against people who might harm you, but yes, if you allow individuals their individual freedoms they may still make decisions that aren't ultimately good for you. So what? Are politicians not people? Or are they exempt from the selfish-and-short-sighted rule because they wear suits and ties to work? I don't get it. Keep in mind some of what these "superior" people have come up with over the years.

Ultimately I have more faith in humanity than that (at least in the people who don't feel drawn to power), but if you don't think political consumption is realistic, how would you imagine democracy could ever work?

Correct - structure is the result of design. In this case, the structure of a society is designed with the community in mind.

I cannot believe you are actually trying to argue this, but hey: it's an Adok topic after all. I'll just stop posting now, because the idiocy here just pisses me off.

that's the most idiotic thing ever posted to this thread.

doom: I don't really see what freedoms we're being denied - like I asked Adok, how are you being restricted in the way you lead your life? Isn't it just a case of "I want to pay less taxes?"

Structure results from design, among other things. My reliationship with my girlfriend has structure, for example, but it wasn't designed by anyone.

i wonder why iblis isn't in on this discussion!

hey iblis! i saw a guy with your hairdo in the botanical garden of malaga! for a moment i thought it was you! (it wasn't, right?)

farfar: I'd like the ability to smoke a joint without being a criminal, for example. Or to build a house on land I own without applying for permission and approval first. Or go to a pub that isn't forced to shut at 1am. Or maybe start my own business without drowning in rules and regulations so complex that only large corporations really stand a chance of being competitive. Or gamble my life savings away? Or how about some privacy?

There's such a long list of problems unrelated to taxation, but taxation is a big one, too. You make it sound like people are selfish for wanting to keep the money they've earned. What if the mafia demanded 50% of everything you earn, and forced you to pay up at gunpoint - you'd call that a crime, right? In the government's case, we allow the robbery because we expect that the money is spent in a good way. But not everyone agrees that there's enough of a distinction there.

And if you really thought the government was so good at spending your money for you, why don't you voluntarily overpay your taxes?

I do agree that there are a lot of weird dispositions, such as banning weed but not smoking/drinking - funny that you should mention pubs closing early though, since the UK is a lot closer to the American model than e.g. Denmark is.

I don't think people are selfish for wanting to keep their wages, but here in Denmark it's not like we're just pouring the money into a hole. I'm sure you've enjoyed the free health care, education, and good infrastructure yourself? We're also very highly paid, and have lots of tax loopholes - for instance my tax rebate (fradrag) is about 8k per month, giving me a tax rate of 38% - which you'll probably agree isn't as bad as people want to make out.

I've started my own company, rules and regulations aren't actually that hard to get around - and if they are, hire help. In any case, I bet there are just as many rules and regulations in e.g. the USA. :)

also: the whole "if you like it so much, why don't you donate all your money to the gov't" thing - if you want to discuss the topic seriously, can we drop that sort of thing? I like my wages as much as the next guy, but I don't mind paying taxes - becaue the Scandinavian model has proved beyond a doubt that it provides security, stability and equal possibilities for everyone. I dont' think everyone needs to be equal / to [i]have[/] equally much, but I think everyone should have the same options of getting there, and that means levelling the playing field.

farfar: The UK is closer to the US, maybe. Stricter drinking laws generally, sure. But the US isn't a very libertarian country either. Less so than Denmark in many areas (like alcohol and controlled substances.)

I know that there are times when taxation works as a way to provide services to the masses in a fair and efficient way. There are also times when it doesn't. None of it changes the fact that if taking something by force is wrong, then taxes are wrong, because taxation means taking something by force.

Moral absolutism aside, it's more of a question of why we're taxed in the first place. There are three primary reasons for taxation - one is what you call levelling the playing field, i.e. redistributing money from the rich to the poor. The Robin Hood principle, if you will. But while the sheriff of Nottingham is easily portrayed as a villain, the real world isn't quite as black and white. It's not in itself morally wrong to have more money than someone who has worked less hard than you, or to pass that money on to your children so they can have an easier life than you did.

Another problem with this redistribution is you might not like how the money is being redistributed, but you don't actually have a say in it. Do you want to support people who have decided to throw their lives away with alcohol abuse? Are you really helping them that way? Either way the choice has been made for you.

Redistribution has the further problem of being inherently antisocial. Solidarity is socially disconnecting and dehumanising even when it succeeds in being fair. You're outsourcing your conscience, being discouraged from making moral judgments (with the implication that you're unfit to do so.) What we need is for people to take more of an interest in their surroundings, not pay for someone else to take an interest for them.

The second reason would be securing money for the state's own needs, and that's where it gets really tricky. Cause what if the money is spent on schemes that you're against, like fingerprinting school children, or state-run television networks (BBC, DR, etc.), or wars of aggression, or whatever. You're easily forced to support things you wouldn't want any part in even if they cost you nothing.

And then there's social engineering, which is the government trying to control how you act, supposedly for your own good, by taxing certain things more than others. Not everyone thinks this sort of top-down mentality is very healthy for society and you can easily call into question whether the people who make those decisions are at all competent.

So all in all, there's a lot more to it than "I want more money."

For what it's worth, though, does your 38% include VAT, petrol taxes, special sales taxes, road taxes, TV licence, price inflation brought on by everyone else having similar tax conditions and thus needing higher profits, etc. etc.? Don't be fooled into thinking that 62% of your income is yours to keep. It really isn't.

As for running a business, trust me, it gets harder. A lot harder. A simple one-man business is sort of OK if you're not trading across borders, or manufacturing, or some such, but even for simple things you're going to need (expensive) help with the bookkeeping at one point or another. And as soon as you need to hire someone you step into a whole new world of complexity. You'll spend a lot of your time simply trying to comply, time that you could have spent on your business.



I didn't mean it as "that sort of thing". It's a genuine question. And I didn't say "all your money", I'm talking about the sort of money people might donate to the Red Cross but nobody would consider donating to the government. But nevermind.

Doom:
You could have that ability within your current system. In most western countries, you could declare that cannabis is a SACRAMENT to you. This would usually come under 'constitutional law' so you would have to take your case to 'the supreme court' (or whatever institution your country has at the very top of it's legal system). Then you would not be a criminal unless you were actually SELLING it, you could give it away for free.

If you could be bothered 'ticking all the boxes', getting a few people to say that they believe the same as you, registering an NPO, etc, etc. you could register as a religion.

If L.Ron Hubbard can register his crackpot ideas as a religion, there's no reason why you could not register your more sensible ones.

And then you could accept donations in exchange for your 'free' weed.

But (at least to me) that all sounds like far more trouble than it's worth, when I could just carry on being a criminal withour having to complete any 'red tape'.

It seems religions face much the same problems that businesses face. Having to devote a lot of attention to meet all sorts of requirements, leaving very little time left actually to get stuff done.

Not disagreeing with you at all, just pointing out a little known detail of the current system.

Doom: I had a long answer written up, but screwed up in posting it, sorry =)
anyway, yeah sorry - i took that question as a jibe. I'd probably consider donating to any cause if it was a good one, but generally speaking no, as I would feel that I was giving more than my fair share to society.



do you have an example of a country you'd call libertarian?

at least this thread proves that there are still people with a brain around the world, and in denmark too... sometimes which gives me hope.