Comments on: Gabb on Thatcher http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/ Free Markets and Social Justice Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.2 By: http://www.tradeonixbonuses.com/bonus-tutorial/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-69826 Mon, 16 May 2016 15:50:37 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-69826 … [Trackback]

[…] Informations on that Topic: bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/ […]

]]>
By: bursa orospu http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-69347 Fri, 13 May 2016 09:52:35 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-69347 … [Trackback]

[…] Read More Infos here: bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/ […]

]]>
By: angara fahise http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-69194 Thu, 12 May 2016 15:55:35 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-69194 … [Trackback]

[…] Informations on that Topic: bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/ […]

]]>
By: angara fahise http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-69046 Wed, 11 May 2016 23:12:05 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-69046 … [Trackback]

[…] Find More Informations here: bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/ […]

]]>
By: gshevlin http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-28587 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:14:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-28587 Eventually she was forced to resign by her own party, but she had worn out her welcome by then. Most of my fellow Brits were fed up with her by then, and wanted to see the back of her. The Conservative Party got rid of her because they concluded that the only way they could win an election in 1992 was if they had a leader whose name was not Margaret Thatcher.

]]>
By: gshevlin http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-28586 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:11:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-28586 As I wrote on my blog, Thatcher was a leader in the right time and place for the UK when she was first elected in 1979. The country was drifting after 20 years of incoherent unstable governments, and there was a perception of crisis. The electorate tossed Margaret Thatcher the keys to the car and said “you drive us out of this mess”. The drive ended when she was forced to resign by her own party, but believe me, by then she had long outstayed her welcome. Authoritarian leadership styles in an elective democracy seem to have a limited shelf-life, and Margaret Thatcher either never noticed this, or noticed it and decided to behave the same regardless.
As regards the libertarian measures of her time in office…a decidedly mixed bag. She reduced the bloated power of trade unions. She did stop throwing away subsidy money on industries that were fundamentally non-viable, such as the volume car industry, but that in turn led to near social collapses as older industries collapsed with nothing to take their place in some parts of the country. Her attitude to civil liberties generally was pretty cavalier, and she was contemptuous of local democracy. She was quite prepared to funnel support to despots, as long as they were Her Kind Of Despot. In short, she was more of a classical authoritarian than a libertarian, and the parts of her governance approach that happened to be libertarian simply coincided with her brand of authoritarianism.

]]>
By: MARK_D_FRIEDMAN http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-28495 Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:12:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-28495 Right, so we agree that makes a war just or not (“in the more fundamental sense”) has nothing to do with whether there are some objectors in the country involved that are forced to finance it. Because in any county even the most just war you can possibly imagine will have some objectors, yet this fact does not render the war unjust in the most important sense. If you say otherwise, you are simply arguing by definition, i.e. all states will have objectors, so a state, qua state, can never fight a just war. This simply assumes what you are required to prove.

]]>
By: Sergio Méndez http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-28489 Sat, 13 Apr 2013 02:08:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-28489 I meant that in the more fundamental sense a just war must have (if it is legitimate to use arms and violence in the sake of resolving a conflict or a dispute). Just wars are essentially defensive wars. So even if the means -state based ones are illegitimate- the war was not, per se.

]]>
By: MARK_D_FRIEDMAN http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-28476 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:42:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-28476 On this same thread you said that the British fought a just (“defensive”) war in the Falklands. Do you believe that everyone in the U.K. supported this war and wanted their taxes spent on it? So, this just war “was done with other people[‘s] money and without [their] consent.” Thus, this fact, on your own analysis, can’t render a war unjust.

]]>
By: Sergio Méndez http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/gabb-on-thatcher/#comment-28473 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:18:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5357#comment-28473 Yeah…so much for the “democratic” goverment that has emerged in replacement of Gadhafi. Anyways, I think the libertarian objection to interventionism is also based on:

1) Whatever it is done with the best intentions, interventionism is illegitimate as any othe goverment program (it is done with other people money and without its consent).

2) Usually the intend has nothing to do with noble ideals such as toppling down dictators or helping a more democratic society emerge. It has more to do with created interests along goverment intervention (and spending): military industrial complex, imperialistic interests, eliminating political adversaries in the world (to replace them with other equally anti democratic or anti freedom) etc.

]]>