Nah, they’d have nothing to blame their shortcomings on. It’d never work.

Go, Galt, go! You can do it!

As to whether I really believe in rounding up those whose politics I don’t like, or whether my comment was merely an observation on the likely chances of success for a political “movement” whose adherents are apparently unable to agree on, well, anything… I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

I propose we round up everyone who self-identifies as Libertarian, stick them all on an island, and leave them to it until they figure which of them is the True Libertarian (i.e. we go in a week later to clear up the bodies). We could call it “Last Libertarian Standing”.

Real liberals oppose all these things but there is no copyright on such terms & it is perfectly possible for the LibDems to claim to be liberal without being so (& also to claim democracy while making manifesto promises on referendums & then laughing in the electorate’s face after the election).

William Wilberforce and others brought it to an end in this country some while ago…

If you don’t have property then you work to accumulate it – just like those who own the property did.

None whatsoever.

You are a very weird guy.

No.

Can I quote you, yes I will.

If they start to infringe on other peoples property rights or any other rights then they must face the law.

That is bullshit, and if you don’t know it then you are a particularily sad person.

I don’t know how ignorant you are, or how stupid you are, but it seems to me that you are just another apologist for a property owning status quo. Why don’t you admit that Liberatianism is nothing more than that the status quo? In Spades perhaps?

What a joyous prospect.

What a tit. Ownership of land is the measure of status for the human race.

What absolute shite.

You use the phrase “submit to the property masters” and then tell me to grow up? How laughable. Your whole comment is stepped in Marxist language. I thought the left had moved on from ‘wage labour exploitation’.

If you don’t have property then you work to accumulate it – just like those who own the property did. You can choose to work for ‘the property master’ as you put it (the key word here being choose – you are not forced to) in which case a contract is made between the employee and employer. Alternatively you get a bank or any other institution to give you capital to back your own business or ideas etc. You can take any number of measures to provide for yourself without having any property.

I can assume what you would propose though is some sort of forced redistribution of property or wealth, or perhaps that it be held in ‘collective ownership’ by the state.

In the first case simply see Nozick’s famous Wilt Chamberlain argument and in the 2nd see the tyranny and oppression caused in Russia, China or anywhere else where the state control the economy in their leaders interest.

So I suppose in Libertarian Philosophy, property rights are really important? Who’d have thought it!

What a load of dreck.

What if you, Think This, don’t have any property? What then? Curl up and die, or what? Submit to the property masters?

Grow up.

I think that there is a reasonable case to be made that no Libertarian is actually more than emotionally seven years old and still believes in Santa Claus.

1. Roger Helmer is not a libertarian. He is a right wing Tory with some libertarian leanings. He does not claim to be a libertarian
2. The TFA does not claim to represent libertarians. Its membership is compromised of a weird mix of old hard right Tories (hang em and flog em’) right wingers with libertarians leanings (Helmer?) and real Libertarians.
3. True libertarians would say that the government has no right to tell you where to live (which entails open boarders etc) and that the ‘travellers’ have a right to live anywhere they like. If they start to infringe on other peoples property rights or any other rights then they must face the law. I can sympathise with people not wanting to live near travellers because -rightly or wrongly – they fear this will lead to more crime etc. However unless the travellers actually start doing these things then in a libertarian society there is no basis for stopping them from living where ever they like.

So to answer your question “are all libertarians this childish?” – the question is not valid. No libertarians advocate said thoughts (because as you point out they conflict with the libertarians premiss of individual liberty), thus no libertarians are that childish.

“I’ve thrown you Saipan as a defensible position for libertarian society – and there are defences that can be made, but most of them are too inhuman to be posted on this thread – but if you want to stick to your defence of “Markets rock, go eat a dick” then that’s your prerogative. I’ve raised Saipan, post-Soviet Russia and post-Saddam Iraq with libertarians before, and none of you fancy the challenge”

Congratulations on besting all those doltish libertarians in battle! Have you ever considered the possibility that these folk don’t “fancy the challenge” of arguing the toss with you because they shrink from the utter pointlessness of debating an individual who genuinely considers Saipan, post-Soviet Russia and post-Saddam Iraq as “defensible libertarian positions”? Frankly, if I had the time, I could effortlessly explain to you the errors of your ways. It would be easy, because your assumptions regarding what constitutes the libertarian ideal are so confused. However, I’m pretty certain I know your type, and – just like Perry de Havilland above – I’m not interested in wasting my time fighting lost causes.