Liberty, here's my idea of individual liberty:

The liberty not to suffer unduly from hunger, cold and ill-health should circumstances turn against me

The liberty to enjoy a safe, peaceful, stable society, where looking out for one another is a valued quality

The liberty to elect the government that I believe will do the best job of ensuring that our country remains prosperous, and that all have a chance to contribute to and enjoy that prosperity

All these liberties are reasonably well satisified by the social democratic system that we currently enjoy (though no doubt there is much room for improvement).

You seem to prefer something like anarcho-capitalism - pray tell, what liberties does such a system grant you?

Wizofaus “You seem to prefer something like anarcho-capitalism - pray tell, what liberties does such a system grant you”

Although not addressed to me, let me respond,

I Personally, do prefer something “like anarcho-capitalism” to the “levelling cesspool and failure” which socialism and its ilk repeatedly deliver.

Regarding ““The liberty not to suffer unduly from hunger, cold and ill-health should circumstances turn against me”

I recall waiting in line for 3 years with a perforated eardrum, to see a specialist (who did nothing) under the UK national health system. It was repaired by a surgeon within 3 weeks of going to a GP in Australia, privately.

The point, I was forcibly made to pay for a national health service which did not deliver and over which I could not withdraw or challenge for their incompetence and tardiness in any way at all.

That is what you get when you elect for the state to protect you from “ill-health” – higher taxes and no service.

As for “The liberty to enjoy a safe, peaceful, stable society…”

Lets put it this way

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state”
(Margaret Thatcher)

Nothing is guaranteed by socialism which, Margaret does not allude to as individual “compassion”.

What is guaranteed of socialism is the following

“The goal of socialism is communism.”
(Lenin)

Who went on to say

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”

Socialism and socialistic “guarantees” mean the LOSS of individual freedom of choice, compulsory taxation to fund the bureaucracy of the state.

There is nothing which any “socialist model” will ever add to anyone’s “quality of life” even the kibbutz system failed once the true believers started to have children and identified particularly with their own family unit versus the collective..

"Stable society" elected Margaret Thatcher, Lenin used murderous revolution.

Yeah, saw the same program. What is conveniently overlooked by the hard "right" is that they too recognise their ideology is losing it (US for example).

Communism is a bain, so is neo-con capitalism.

Col, what's your take on "social conservatism"? You know, the small 'l' or moderates of the Liberal party - in fact not much different to Rudd's Labor (cf: Rudd & Turnbull).

Brendon Nelson scraped in due to the 'old guard' view of Howard's right wing. Turnbull and Co (like Rudd) realise a more centrist ideology is needed - it's called convergence.

Col - I see your point about the health system, but I'd ask whether you think privatisation is a good idea in cases where it isn't a profitable service.
Take the Telstra privatisation as an example, and provision of services to rural areas. From where I'm sitting, it seems to me that most Australian privatisation efforts have been so horrifically mismanaged there aren't many examples of where the services have genuinely improved.

Liberty, Shockadelic - I made the point that Liberty's posts were indicative of a mindset of Socialism-v-Capitalism when in effect, all economies are a blend of them anyway.

Aside from making a few snide insults, you haven't actually made any indication this is false.

A pure capitalist model wouldn't actually have really any need for government at all - there is a model for privatising pretty much every role of government, though the question then becomes what kind of democracy is left. I can't see pure capitalism being any better than pure socialism, so it's quite fortunate we have neither.

Liberty, as far as your "Socialism remains socialism regardless of what system is added to it, for all systems are necessarily socialist"

No, it doesn't just go over my head, you're just an economic extremist playing games of semantics.

Effectively, you're calling every economy on the planet socialist.

I'm calling you an extremist, because reasonable people operate within a realistic frame - that is, all things are relative.

So, we have a multitude of economies, some with more market freedom than others.

You however, can't engage in this discussion - because government regulation exists, everything's socialist, end of the debate.

Of course, an inability to enter a reasonable discussion due to preconceived extremist views, and an unwillingness to accept compromise as a satisfactory outcome, I'd say, is a pretty fair description of an extremist.

Col, and what on earth makes you believe that under anarcho-capitalism the chance of being able to find someone to quickly operate on a perforated eardrum would be any better, especially if, due to circumstances out of your control, you didn't have the financial ability to pay for private care?

I don't have any problem with Thatcher's "society where people are free to make mistakes" quote - and I believe we very much do have that society. But under anarcho-capitalism, many "mistakes" would most likely mean irrecoverable financial ruin or even death - i.e. there's no meaningful freedom to make such mistakes.

Under social democracy, the state is most certainly not responsible for "everything" - there's the simple recognition that in many cases it makes far more sense to pool our resources and ensure that everyone has access to basic services that keep our economy ticking along.

Under anarcho-capitalism who do you think would bother providing streetlights, or sewers, or a police force? Who do you think would be responsible for ensuring that pollution was kept under control?

The claim "while the State exists, there can be no freedom" flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. We have far more freedoms now than our ancestors did when there was no "State" (i.e. before the first civilisations ever came into existence).
Further, I see no evidence that people are less free, less prosperous or less enterprising in say, Norway or Denmark, than in the U.S. or Singapore, despite the fact that the former nations have governments that take responsibility for far more than the latter's. In fact, Singapore quite explicitly demonstrates that "small government" is no guarantee of personal liberty. Hell, they don't even have democracy, let alone the freedom to chew gum.

Wizofaus,

[[[[Liberty, here's my idea of individual liberty: The liberty not to suffer unduly from hunger, cold and ill-health should circumstances turn against me]]]]
This is tangential to individual liberty, and therefore does not define it.

[[[[The liberty to enjoy a safe, peaceful, stable society, where looking out for one another is a valued quality]]]]
You cannot define individual liberty in terms of the whole of society. So this definition won't do either.

[[[[The liberty to elect the government that I believe will do the best job of ensuring that our country remains prosperous, and that all have a chance to contribute to and enjoy that prosperity]]]]
This is effectively the opposite of individual liberty.

[[[[You seem to prefer something like anarcho-capitalism - pray tell, what liberties does such a system grant you?]]]]
First things first. And the first thing is for you to properly define individual liberty.