User talk:Libertarian1

What have you got against the NHS? 10:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What's worse is that he's a British libertarian. That's like double the political obscurity right there.   10:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few British liberatarians, believe it or not. I'd say in total they'd command about a tenth of the national vote, similar to the situation in the US. Thatcherism was heavily libertarian as compared to most European political movements which actually achieved power. Libertarian1 (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the classic "puff up your figures so your opinion gains validity". I'm going to need some evidence that 1 in ten British voters are libertarians. 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize if the initial "welcome" comments on your page seemed hostile. We welcome diversity of opinion here; I myself remember with great fondness the last diehard libertarian we had here. 10:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I have to say, considering the heavy handed and discourteous nature of the nomadic quality of my 'debate' (A contentious issue by all accounts!) I'm rather surprised by the welcome I've received thus far! But I'll give it a chance, hopefully these bureaucratic impulses will only be a blip. Libertarian1 (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the bureaucrats run things here. You'll see. 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd dispute that you (Lib) were even slightly surprised at your (lack of) welcome if you'd looked at the site for more that five minutes. When it comes to dealing with twattish trolls we're all much of a mind here. Try Conservapedia if you want some like minded folk or we might create a special membership status for you and RobSmith - pariah class! 13:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]


 * Can I ask why you are treating me so badly? For christs sake, I may hold differing opinions to you, but don't judge me wholeheartedly (Even as one of those aforementioned 'trolls') just because I happen to believe that the state should be winded down in the interests of liberty and individuality. Libertarian1 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because if you had really looked around this site you would have seen how Libertarianism is treated. You're raising the same old PRATTs, albeit this time from a UK perspective. Coming here and propounding hard line libertarianism is as controversial as stating a hard line anti abortion position or hard line evangelical Christianity. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well i guess I was looking at the wrong website. I was on conservapedia before, but from what you're saying Rationalwiki must be a liberal version of that, if you are so adverse to opposing viewpoints (Which I believe I have made in a courteous manner) Libertarian1 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you haven't been banned for disagreeing shows one major difference between RW and CP. Also, we don't pretend to be an encyclopedia. DickTurpis (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I like you. But some of the attitudes on this site are extremely childish and trollish. I've decided I'm not going to respond to users who make comments based on ridicule of something they haven't really bothered to reflect on. I'd love a reasonable debate and really I hope I get one, but will not respond to internet bullys in the future. Libertarian1 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore the childish ones. I usually do. 14:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have missed the answer somewhere, but where did you back up your claim that 10% of people in the UK are libertarians? I've only ever met one person who self identifies as such. I have never met anybody who is opposed to the NHS. Bondurant (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I forget the name of the fallacy, but the "no one I know does so-and-so" is never a terribly good point, especially as people tend to associate with people who are somewhat like-minded. But 10% does seem high, though the definition of "libertarian" is not concrete enough to give any real specific numbers, I warrant. Then again, I'm not British, so what do I know? DickTurpis (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 10% is a very liberal interpretation of both Thatcherism and the grassroots of the Tory and Liberal Democrat party. They are not thoroughbred Libertarians, but I would consider 10% to be an accurate figure for people with Libertarian sympathies. Libertarian1 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thatcher was not exactly libertarian. The armed forces certainly didn't see a reduction under her watch, for example (Trident and Eurofighter were both initiated in the 1980s). Privatisation of some industries and government owned monopolies was a bitter pill for many, although now largely accepted as a good thing by all parties, but regulation was left in place when they had an "ideal" opportunity to not regulate.
 * There are many people in the UK who are concerned about civil liberties, but that doesn't make them libertarians. Those same people are more than likely quite happy that the state provides a good health care system, transport infrastructure and emergency services. Bondurant (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)"Libertarian sympathies" isn't exactly the same as full on libertarian politics though. If you take the libertarian ideal of personal freedom, e.g., the state shouldn't interfere with what you do with yourself (mostly sex, drugs, rock n' roll), then a very high percentage would agree and 10% would be a thorough underestimate. However, if you take the full thing (though I have to base it on US libertarianism, of which I know a more of so can pitch it better) that advocates absolutely minimal government and privatisation of all services, then I think the support would be far less than 10%. It might be about right for a median value, though. 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The exponential rise of the state
Would you care to elucidate. Given that "exponential" has a very clear definition tied to geometric as opposed to arithmetic growth which aspects of the state are growing exponentially? How does that tie in with, for example, civil servants consisting or 1.8% of the workforce today compared with 2.4% in 1992. This is hardly exponential growth.

Furthermore, as part of the "handouts" society, spending on welfare has fallen form around 10% of GDP in the 80s to around 7% nowadays. facts from this web site How is this growth, let alone exponential?

Which aspects of the state do you see as growing geometrically? Can you point to more than anecdotal evidence? You obviously feel that the NHS should be disbanded. Which other parts should also be disbanded? Pensions? Police? The Army? Civil infrastructure? And if not, why not?

Whilst we're diametrically opposed politically this is a sincere interest in why you hold such extreme views. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't expect him to actually think about his arguments do you? I'm hoping the comments on his debate page will spark some severe Cognitive dissonance though. 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Emm.. excuse me. You know nothing about me whatsoever. I've never come across such arrogance in all my life. Libertarian1 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Give the guy a chance. He's resigned his job to dedicate his life to civil liberties so he must be serious (even if giving up his job means he's living off handouts). Furthermore, because he's not 'merican, he hasn't endorsed allowing the criminally insane the right to own thermonuclear bombs. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I hereby propose that we should, as the first part of reducing the role of the state, immediately stop all of those over inflated civil service pensions. They never contributed a penny whilst they were working and after taking early retirement they expect to live off my taxes. Disgusting. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack,


 * I will not play with figures. (as these are all to easily manipulated - I for example could show a seperate set of figures that shows an exponential increase of public spending as a share of GDP, but what would be the point) I have worked in the civil service and in the last decade the rise of technology, computerisation, and technocracy generally has enabled a more efficient and in some minor cases, less workers than before. There used to be temp workers who spent all day filing and organising paperwork. These are un-necessary. The last decade has completely changed how the civil service operates. But the scale of its involvement in everyday life - the rise of regulations, the incessant intrusion of the state into the lives of individuals is a constant march. I can tell you this first hand from my experience.


 * And I do not live on handouts. I work for a small salary professionally for a political group. My wife works for the NHS. Unfortunately we were never able to conceive children, so we have very few outlays. Our mortgage has been paid. I am now doing the kind of work I love. So please don't make assumptions about life - I don't believe I've done this with you. Thank you. Libertarian1 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S- Manipulation of figures is far too easy. The economy was both smaller in the 80s and unemployment was much higher. If you are going to use statistics, at least be familiar with the context in which they are set. Libertarian1 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem. He measured the amount of welfare spending as a share of GDP. Röstigraben (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. The economy was smaller in the 80s and welfare spending was higher because unemployment was higher. Unemployment rarely topped 5% in the Blair years. Libertarian1 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The absolute size of the economy is irrelevant, numbers like that simply show that growth in welfare spending hasn't matched GDP growth, which is the opposite of what you claim. As for unemployment, I'm not familiar with your country's particular system, but this article suggests that the fraction of total welfare spending going to the unemployed is rather small. Röstigraben (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Class. At least you came back. I was expecting you to pull off a mask and actually be MC or EL (RW references, ignore them). 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not play with figures That usually means "the figures don't back my prejudices". If you're going to debate on this website you need to back up you position with better than you've provided so far. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The figures you provided are clearly easily manipulated. For one thing, you took no account of unemployment whatsoever, or that 1980s Britain suffered from post IMF economic disaster. The problem with statistics is that they don't take account of context much, and I'd rather debate in ideas and reasoned discussion than 'cold hard figures' which most of the time are manipulated. P.S- The State is much more than mere welfare expenditure. I notice you don't provide the figures that shows how NHS spending increased dramatically under New Labour :) And therein lies the problems with statistics - you provide, I provide figures, we all provide figures. But none of us are actually saying anything worthwhile. Libertarian1 (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As opposed to, say, the massive increase in health care spending in the US, which has a market-based system? Edit: and sorry, you can't simply make claims without offering any evidence, and then retreat to a "debate about ideas" when people call you out on it. Röstigraben (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a stretch to say that the US health system is 'market based'. Its corporatist if anything, its a system which favours massive insurance companies, and its regulated largely in their favour (Even more so now, when people are 'mandated' to take out health care coverage) Furthermore, the US spends more on medical programmes for seniors and the very poor than many European states, in terms of GDP per head. The US health system is a mammoth, but its hardly a child of the free market. Its merely a social democratic system, with some corporate friendly policies, ran by private companies who struggle to withstand the double pressure of ludicrous federal regulations and a system that promotes corporate corruption. Libertarian1 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, stuff like Medicare and Medicaid are government-run welfare addons, and certainly not small ones, but the insurance market itself isn't too heavily regulated. No government-mandated fixed prices for certain premiums, for example. As for corporate corruption and oligopoles, sorry, but you can't blame those on government interference. On the contrary, antitrust laws and regulations are in place to prevent their emergence out of market competition. By the way, sorry we've messed up your talk page and force you to hop back and forth between here and the debate you set up, but at least there's no shortage of opinions. Röstigraben (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we live in a state capitalist system. Massive firms realise they stand little chance of breaking apart, because they are too big to fail. The fall of Lehmans brothers surprised the banks and markets, but it was a drop in the sea. In reality governments bail out and help companies in risk of failure. Their bad practise is rewarded. Politicians are very close to corporate masters of the universe, and have a very cosy relationship. The problems in the US health market is that its a bastardisation of American corporatism and European social democracy - which means it inherits the flaws of both whilst also exhibiting the benefits of neither. Libertarian1 (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course their bad practice was rewarded, but then again, they always knew they'd be bailed out. And if the government announced that it wouldn't do it again in case another major bank comes to the verge of collapse, they'd know it's an empty bluff, because inaction and the resulting damage to the economy would be far more costly than some form of bailout whose costs may at least in part be recouped through interest payments. Standing idly by would simply be irrational, so it's not a credible threat. I guess you're not in favour of increased regulation and taxation of the financial industry, both of which would reduce the risk of further speculative bubbles and require the banks to share the burden of the rescue packages they enjoyed. So what's your solution to this problem, then? Röstigraben (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Solution? I have no solution? You need to understand things from a completely different perspective. State intervention on behalf of massive corporations allows these corporations to take risks any rational economic entity would not. The reason they are so large in the first place is because they are little propped up - imagine, if you will, a 98 year old cancer sufferer been kept alive by intensive medicine. The principle is the same. They need to fall. The crash will be catastrophic, but we stuck in a cycle of despondancy and the only viable solution to me seems to be euthanasia. Allow them to survive as best they can, allow them to fall, allow better, more energetic minds to take control. Whatever it takes. I'll agree that in the present economic system, allowing the banks to go bust would ruin the economy - but that, I think, underscores the damage of having corporations of that size holding the citizenry to ransom. Libertarian1 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Or have tighter controls on what they can and can't do to stop them getting into those situations in the first place. We have trading laws for a reason. 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to basic regulations to protect trading integrity and to prevent blatant corruption. Libertarian1 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Allowing our financial industry to fall is not a solution, I'm afraid. You may call that unjust, beacuse society as a whole has to bear the costs of a gamble that went awry, but given the fact that the costs of not carrying out the rescue measures would've been far greater, and would also have been absorbed by all of us, that was never an option. And once again, you claim without any evidence that these companies only ever got so large and powerful because they're somehow in cahoots with the government, not as a result of concentration processes in a badly regulated market. By the way, care to hazard a guess about which well-known country's banks have the most solid-looking balance sheets, a very high profitability, not too much risk exposure due to highly-leveraged investments, and generally reasonable payment schemes for its employees? Hint: it's a nation whose government is very, very prone to intervene in the economy and is the owner or at least majority stockholder in all of its major banks. Röstigraben (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about China, then it comes as no surprise. Its economy is exploding for a variety of reasons, and state owned banks are directed by the State to invest where they think is wise. They are several reasons to explain the rise of China as an economic entity. Nowhere will you ever here me claim that prosperity is impossible in a statist system. My Libertarianism is based around the principles of self reliance, family, and individualism. I'm not terribly moved by economics. Libertarian1 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right on. But I didn't want to set China on a pedestal as a model for how to run an economy (admirable as their success may be), I simply wanted to show you that the problems Western banking corporations have are probably not due to the government interfering too much with that particular branch of the economy. Röstigraben (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Bullying"
Chill Winston!! What you call bullying on this site we call "lively debate". If you're going to spend time discussing such topics on the internet you should get used to a little banterous abuse. I myself am called an arsehole on a daily basis (though mainly by my wife). Crack open a beer and join in. We like you really. 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, can someone sysop Libertarian1? The immense number of red exclaimation marks are making my brain hurt. 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the arsehole, on both counts. -- ConcernedResident equestrian for the ladies 14:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, prick. 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh, let me! I have An Idea. 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DickTurpis beat you to it. 14:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Demotion
Congrats, you've been demoted to sysop. Please don't abuse your powers. (This is something you certainly wouldn't get at Conservapedia.) DickTurpis (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sysop
You have been made part of the Evil State. A handbook for the repression of the masses can be found here, and you may be interested in the IP range 051/8, as well as 217.64.234/24. 14:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in being a sysop. Please donate my new powers to a more interested individual. Libertarian1 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure everyone with an interest is already a sysop; there isn't exactly a shortage. But if you really want I'll put you back to normal user. Just confirm that's your wish so there's no misunderstanding. DickTurpis (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate that, thanks. I'd worry about evolving into a Stalinist if I had those powerz for more than an hour. Libertarian1 (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, more red exclaimation marks :( 15:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. Good to see you have a sense of humor about the whole thing. DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning
So far all your edits have been talk, talk, talk. We strive for conciseness and substantive contributions here. Perhaps Wikipedia would be a better place for you. Acei9 20:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

disappointed
I am disappointed that someone so seemingly insightful cannot differentiate between Mr. Cicero and myself. I'm just not sure if I'm disappointed in you, myself or both. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You may not be MarcusCicero. But if I say you are, and you aren't, it is irrelevant, since there are a considerable number of people here who think you are. Thus I will appear insightful to them. If I say you aren't, and you are, then I will lose my rapidly growing reputation for keen insight. Its a catch 22 really, Marcus. I'm sure you understand. Marcus. Libertarian1 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawless. Thanks for the explanation. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OccasionalUse, you made one key error in your assumption of insightfulness. Because he's a libertarian, he's incapable of original thought.  As a result, he has to form his opinion based on what other users, and especially RWW, have to say.  SO it's impossible form him to recognize people who are Marcus socks and aren't Marcus socks if they are not identified as such beforehand and it's impossible for him to recant these notions once they are forms (again due to being a libertarian).  -- 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How un-necessarily aggresive. This reminds me of someone. Libertarian1 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaaannnndddd... my point is proven. Have a good day!  -- 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever, TE...you're at least twice as likely to be MC as I am. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your point exactly, MC? You seem to be building a case for something here, but won't say it aloud. This is not the first time you've suggested something radical in order to deal with the MC threat. Either you truly believe in the kind of authoritarianism you spout - which is unthinkable; why would such a person join a site like this? Or you are in fact MC, keeping the controversy alive by stroking along the edges, nudging, pushing, trawling... Anyway, this has been fun. I really could do without being a target of MC. Judging from what I've picked up here from observing him and this community, the best thing to do is to ignore you in future and say no more about it. Libertarian1 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been fun. There's no need to stop unless you care that much about what the cabal thinks. If however, you decide to proceed, and if you did make good on the intention to "ignore [MC] in future and say no more about it", I would respect you for it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use the various troll templates, lest people get into more fights on your talk page. 21:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I despise that attitude. 1) Trolling in itself is subjective. 2) Trolling can be useful and entertaining at times, with the right troll. 3) Some people on the internet need to be taken down a peg or two. Wikipedia could do with at least 5 times more trolling. So many users there quote and abuse policy - really, do they actually have lives? 4) Why would I want to hide comments in the public domain? The onus is on the individual to make a choice as to whether he or she wants to read the material within. Its not hard to tell when Marcus is active; hence, the logical thing to do is stay away from those zones of activity. Hiding that activity with internet constructs - such as templates - is a regressive step and risks ignoring him if he actually has something useful to say. The RWW page on David Gerard has made an excellent insight into this danger. 5) I don't post here often and I quite like the rare attention I'm receiving. I like reading your WIGO posts and may make the odd contribution, and don't want to piss anyone off. Putting up templates screams of provocation to me, and I'd rather not attract that kind of misbehaviour from MarcusCicero. Libertarian1 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @1-3, that's why I prefer the hiding template, rather than reverting or drowning in them. @4, mostly to deter people continuing conversations that cease to involve you or are otherwise inappropriate for your talk page, at your discretion. @5, fair enough, though they're just boxes. Some people here resent the "your talk page has new changes" message, particularly when it's trolling (in the individual, subjective opinion to which each editor is entitled). 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my moodiness. I'm only after a run in with a wikipedia editor on full form, what with the quoting on wiki laws, the wiki oratory, the appeals to wiki lawyers and judges, his ceaseless determination to be obtuse and avoid the central issue in question, and all the rest. He reminded me much of David Gerard, hence why I got involved in all of this. Needless to say I think templates are a virus imported from wikipedia, and will not be using them. Libertarian1 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, no problem. I grew up on object-oriented programming, so I like tossing templates around whenever remotely necessary. It does get a bit hard to edit when wikis get bureaucratic, though... 21:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

pathetic loser
Who the fuck do you think you are? you are such a worthless imbecile. Imagine quitting your job so as to become a full time Libertarian? You utter nonce. I bet your wife is fat and ugly as well. I fucked her in the asshole last night, you pathetic waste of space. 86.40.201.187 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Marcus, do you really think yelling at your socks gives them any sort of credibility? 11:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you on about? 86.40.201.187 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck Libertarianism. I am a neocon.....a classical neocon, like Fukuyama. AceX-102 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)