Gotta Suck being old in the UK

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm not impressed with using doctors to convince the elderly not to get help. The medical profession should not be used to 'convince' people to not have procedures.

From what I'm reading Euthanasia is on the rise in Europe for the due to doctors convincing people it is time to go.

Why not?
A medical procedure is always with risk.

I have been offered surgery on my neck. The neuro-surgeon recommends it but two GPs are against it. The small chance of paralysis has decided me against it.

Should I ignore the GPs advice?

Also you know nothing about euthanasia in Europe.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It also doesn't make financial sense to talk over 75's out of having hip replacements etc (if they are physically able to undergo the procedure) as the cost of having to provide long term hospital or community care would be a great deal higher than the cost of the operation.

"long term hospital care" ? ?

They get a walking stick and some drugs and are sent home.

We have Kevin an old 60+ construction worker here right now in exactly this situation. The choice; months of debilitating pain on a waiting list or pay up.

Originally posted by Wajoma
"long term hospital care" ? ?

They get a walking stick and some drugs and are sent home.

We have Kevin an old 60+ construction worker here right now in exactly this situation. The choice; months of debilitating pain on a waiting list or pay up.

Can not comment on how things are done in New Zealand, but 'bed blocking' is quite common in the UK with patients having to stay in hospital longer than necessary. Services 'have' to be put in place to ensure they are cared for at home. - I have already mentioned that i worked in a rapid response team, and this is just one example of services intended to prevent extended and costly hospital admissions and care for/treat people in their own homes.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Which part of my statement specifically do you dispute?

all of it, I see what happens every day in the NHS I work in James Cook Hospital in Middlesbrough.

Originally posted by redbadger
all of it, I see what happens every day in the NHS I work in James Cook Hospital in Middlesbrough.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25127344

Originally posted by Wajoma
What are these 'felt' freedoms?

Looks like you're trying to take a jab at libertarianism here, but your knowledge of what libertarianism is makes the 'jab' pretty darn ineffectual.

The tired old 'stateless utopia' red herring. It turns from a "POW" into a '...poof'. Libertarians make no such claims about a utopia. There will always be those that thi ...[text shortened]... an mind"

...that sprung to your mind but not to the minds of any libertarians I know.

This is fairly staid, commonsense political terminology, and not the controversial neologising you seem to see it as, but to reprise:

1) Formal freedoms are constitutional freedoms that may or may not realize actual freedom.
2) Real, felt freedoms are the freedoms exercised in the actual lives of people.

As an example, take the current pursuit of an EU exit by UKIP, the UK's own self-described libertarian party. UKIP seeks to increase freedoms by eliminating not only the UK's membership, but by staging a bonfire of employment laws, notably the working time directive. All of this will unquestionably increase formal freedom in the constitutional sense of repealing and abrogating statute laws, but their programme also risks weakening the real, economic position of workers, and will probably reduce their opportunity to work in a healthy environment and their purchasing liberty in a capitalist economy.

As for "middle class comfort blanket", I simply meant the army, the police, and the courts and indeed anything with a badge that can help impose one section of society's will on another. Since all of these are examples of state power, and arms of the state Ayn Rand and your own former party confessed themselves eminently happy with, I don't think it's an unfair description.

I'm not attacking you personally or indeed right-wing libertarianism in general: as a guild socialist I don't even reject the "utopian" label as a pejorative one, although I do reject the blueprint most libertarians I encounter seem to present online. As a working-class right-wing libertarian you've presumably experienced the difficulties that actually present themselves to working-class people in New Zealand, formed a judgement on the libertarian, liberiste and collectivist models and come to an informed Objectivist belief. My problem is yourself excepted, most of the libertarians I encounter online generally have no interest in private sector centralization, and often seem to be anti-trade union while retaining an absolute indifference to corporate victimization.

I don't think this is a paradox, or even conscious hypocrisy/ cognitive dissonance. I think it flows generally from the fact that most of them - present company excepted - simply haven't experienced a blue-collar life, and only experience centralization as a force of levelling in their own family and working life, which of course equally renders the leader-worship and victimization of the private sector matters of indifference to them. If socialism is the language of priorities, priorities are also the most revealing feature of every ideology, including Randism - and while some right-wing libertarians may be in principle unworried by trade unionism or see corporate centralization as a merit bad, I've certainly never seen any of them break into a sweat addressing any of these issues, because the Servile State looms so much larger in their materially comfortable lives.

This obviously isn't unique to NZ or even the US. In my own country, UKIP are "libertarian" while simultaneously advocating a massive increase in the state in the form of police numbers. While a massive increase in the state may theoretically reduce the delibertarian effect of a crimewave, I'm not wholly convinced an extra layer of soldiers, policemen and lawyers is what most people would have in mind when voting for a libertarian political party.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Duchess64 disagrees with me. I view this as an attack!! 😠

Originally posted by Amaurote
This is fairly staid, commonsense political terminology, and not the controversial neologising you seem to see it as, but to reprise:

1) Formal freedoms are constitutional freedoms that may or may not realize actual freedom.
2) Real, felt freedoms are the freedoms exercised in the actual lives of people.

As an example, take the current pursuit of an ...[text shortened]... nd lawyers is what most people would have in mind when voting for a libertarian political party.

"1) Formal freedoms are constitutional freedoms that may or may not realize actual freedom."

Or in other words freedoms that may not have anything to do with freedom.

Nope, that didn't explain a lot and for all the 'common sense' you've made bit of a hash of defining what they (formal V felt) are. What do you mean by 'purchasing liberty'? That you've got loads'a of money to spend? Or that you’ve got loads'a things to spend your money on? Whose money?

You are correct that Libertarians do believe the role of the state is police, justice and defence. So you were doubly wrong in your original post with 'stateless utopia'. The purpose of these agencies is to protect you from me, and me from you. Not to force price controls or extort property. So your line "anything with a badge that can help impose one section of society's will on another" is also incorrect.

Here is a quote from your original post:

“…dissonance to raise an army and a police force, and presumably whatever other middle class comfort blankets spring uppermost to the libertarian mind."

We’ve established police justice, defence, but then you tried to fluff out your post, to inflate it a little, to make it look less empty, with these words:

' other middle class comfort blankets’.

Did you mean “an army and a police force and an army and a police force"? I would contend that police, justice and a defence force would be a comfort blanket for all in society regardless of their class.

When challenged on the:

“other middle class blankets”

Your reply:

“As for "middle class comfort blanket", I simply meant the army, the police, and the courts”

There is no 'other middle class comfort blanket'.

In a free society you are free to band with like-minded people and set employment conditions, free health care, etc amongst yourselves but it would be illegal to threaten others with force if they did not agree your ideals.
Libertarians (not left, right nor horizontal libertarians) also believe in the tenet “Let peaceful people cross borders freely” Could this be considered a policy of the UKIP?

Trade unionism is not a Libertarian issue unless they step over the line into force, threats of force and fraud. So being for or against unions does not define libertarianism, and nor does making enough noise at the necessary volume about corporations to appease Amaurote, define libertarianism.

Your subsequent post merely reinforces my original diagnosis:

Doesn’t know jack about libertarianism.

(BTW. Rand was not a libertarian and she had some mean things to say about libertarians, she also knew a bit about the subject.)

Originally posted by Wajoma
"1) Formal freedoms are constitutional freedoms that may or may not realize actual freedom."

Or in other words freedoms that may not have anything to do with freedom.

Nope, that didn't explain a lot and for all the 'common sense' you've made bit of a hash of defining what they (formal V felt) are. What do you mean by 'purchasing liberty'? That ...[text shortened]... and she had some mean things to say about libertarians, she also knew a bit about the subject.)

I'm not sure what you think is so vague about the concept of formal freedoms - the abolition of a law to multiply freedom seems pretty straight-forward and clear.

Similarly, I'm not sure how much clearer you need the concept of real/felt freedom to be - put simply, it's either economic power based largely on individual spending power, or real freedoms individual actors exercise every day of their lives. These are very commonplace categories. They are discrete. Repealing a statute law may well arithmetically reduce the number of formal laws, but it may equally result in fewer real freedoms, more real freedoms, or no net effect at all. These real, felt freedoms are the concerns of most people, but not, so far as I can see, the concerns of most libertarians and minarchists.

Did you mean “an army and a police force and an army and a police force"? I would contend that police, justice and a defence force would be a comfort blanket for all in society regardless of their class.

Not the case. I added the courts to that category. You've conflated lawyers and the police, which seems pretty tendentious. You could also argue for the inclusion of the fire department and prisons, as many libertarians do. If you're arguing that the courts, the police and the army haven't disproportionately served the propertied classes over the centuries, I think that's a pretty determinedly rose-tinted contention for someone who professes such suspicion and cynicism towards the modern state. By any stretch of the imagination, these are very clearly middle class comfort blankets, and to argue their validity as you do based on the criterion of their theoretical universal value opens the door to a number of other arms of the state - many people would no doubt argue that the welfare state and the fiscal promotes social solidarity and the aggregate power of the nation, so why exclude that from your list?

In fact, there's a fabulously rich seam of middle class comfort blankets in world history, which always seem to mysteriously skip the practical implications of shining libertarian or liberiste ideology - in my own country, Mrs Thatcher made the most wonderful speeches about eliminating welfare dependency, and acted on them...except when it came to abolishing MIRAS, which she refused on the noble grounds that she couldn't do it because it would upset "our people".

In addition to attributing inequality to a lack of effort, your own former party proposed cushy tax breaks:

YouTube

In a free society you are free to band with like-minded people and set employment conditions, free health care, etc amongst yourselves but it would be illegal to threaten others with force if they did not agree your ideals.

Okay, granted - but define force. If a trade union votes democratically for its individual members to strike or work to rule to defend their pay and conditions, is that force? Is a picket line force? Is a boycott force? Is a sick-out force? Is it force for an employer to hire Pinkerton men to shoot them up, or is that the legitimate right of property to defend itself from a mob of communists seeking to violently impose itself on your right as a employer to set the wages and conditions you want?

So far as I can see, it would be more logical to look at an Althusserian conception of the state, which includes compulsion in all forms, not just in a body which, by the way, is one of the few you can actually vote to change. I can't vote out the Fortune 500, and, as it turns out, a die-hard Republican mayor like Giuliani can't even effectively jail insider traders, even when he applies the full force of the law.

Libertarians (not left, right nor horizontal libertarians) also believe in the tenet “Let peaceful people cross borders freely” Could this be considered a policy of the UKIP?

They clearly fail your criteria here, but my understanding is that many modern libertarians do favour controls - notably the UK Libertarian Party, which is almost as illiberal on this subject as UKIP and the Monday Club.

So being for or against unions does not define libertarianism

Actually it does - indifference to a subject, alleged or otherwise, tells us a great deal about a political philosophy, and indifference to real economic injustices is indicative of the failure of libertarianism to recognize what real liberty is. And if you fail to even recognize fundamental social problems, let alone posit solutions to them, state-based or otherwise, your ideology probably isn't fit for purpose.