Fester “Private, public and judicial are all limbs of the same beast. For me it is more a case of a balanced physique than amputation.”

Similar to the meek, the limbless are not going to inherit the earth either.

Private organisations can be regulated by government but who regulates government?

Interested in seeing what you would replace them with, fester

Examinator “Col, aren’t you getting lost amongst labels”. . .

Possibly,

“no where in legitimate socialism literature does it say “drag everyone down to the Lowest common denominator”. it is equally reasonable to assert that the purpose is to raise everyone.”

Any system which fixates on equality of outcomes relies on levelling, regardless of how it is written.

“All the current systems are generalizations (the ideals are corrupted by their implementation.) and hobble appropriate thinking and imagination. Both Factors that humans excel an and models can’t reasonably allow for.”

That is why I prefer libertarianism, because the number of decisions nodes and individual variables exceed the modelling capacity of any system of social modelling.

Libertarians support smaller government, with less pretence to control the endeavour of individuals, as the more realistic option,

versus the controlling, interfering arms of the nanny state, which pretends they can plan the outcomes of anything.

Examinator, the ‘labels’ are just shorthand for ideas. Imperfect I know but expedient and remember, politics is the art of the possible (expediency by any other name)

Col

If you have discovered Utopia then I am all ears. Until then, I'll settle for the empirical. I tend to look a little earlier than Margaret Thatcher, and see that the civilisation we enjoy is based on the great effort and sacrifice of many over the centuries.

When things started it was all libertarianism. Things have changed since then, Col.

fester "When things started it was all libertarianism. Things have changed since then, Col."

Not according to history, fester.

It was all "authority of the King and Church"

What the French did in the name of "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality" was move from a Sovereign Tyranny to Republican Terror and ultimately to a military despot.

'Libertarianism' as a political idea did not get a look in until the Americans penned their famous declaration and as the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the earth, it says alot for the merits of an imperfect system.

"Not according to history, fester.

It was all "authority of the King and Church" "

And what about the time before King and Church, Col? And what sort of freedoms did earlier hominids have? The behaviour of primates probably gives a clue or two. But I suspect that at some point libertarianism had less to offer a developing civilisation than formal structures to control behaviour.

fester "And what about the time before King and Church, Col? "

.... "But I suspect that at some point libertarianism had less to offer a developing civilisation than formal structures to control behaviour"

prehistory?

anyones guess.

In those days, not alot of trade, mainly a semi-nomadic 'subsistence' existence. Doubtless formed around an affinity to the family and extended family, tribal in fact.

So are you suggesting we go back to pre "division of Labour" days, you grind your grain and I grind mine?

Libertarianism can only evolve as a democratic principle when people have time to think about the future, when the desperation to feed and shelter a family have been resolved.

But one great libertarian would some similarities with those dark aged and before days, the family / tribal effect

"There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

So maybe the reality of 'kinship' and extended family and the network of friends is what people are motivated by?

For sure, I am convinced no politician or bureaucrat in Canberra gives a rats about me and (this might pop your bubble) they don't give a rats about you either.

Until I can shake hands with "society" I will support a the libertarian ideals of smaller government imposing less interference on the sovereignty of the electorate and trust to the people Margaret Thatcher gave support to, individuals, their families and (although not in the quote), their network of friends.

Adds new insight into "six degrees of separation".

"So are you suggesting we go back to pre "division of Labour" days, you grind your grain and I grind mine?"

Not at all, Col. I was only observing that civilisation evolves.

"There is no such thing as Society."

Indeed there is, Col. Look in a dictionary. But more importantly, there is civilisation. As to what is ideal, I have no certainty, though I dont think it as simple as you seem to. As to what politicians think of me, I dont care. What I want from them are decisions based on sound analysis, not ideology.

Out of interest Col, what do you see as the ideological drivers of population growth? My ideological view is of a spectrum from egalitarianism, which is probably similar to your libertarian ideal, to feudalism, its antithesis. I tend to view advocates of population growth as being of the feudal end of the spectrum.