Join the new world

Hi there Coleman,

I am glad to see that you have produced a follow up on such short notice.

This is also a wall of words aimed at your own wall, sorry for that (: I realize this way of writing is not for all, but hopefully some will get something out of our dialogue.

I think it is a pitty that you explude your political affiliation from this, since a lively debate between parties would be a fresh wind in a room where the dust has settled. That said, it is equally true that my own writing reflects my personal views, and are not official IUP comments. However, since we are both affiliated to parties, their ways of thinking will probably be present in our opinions.

on your article:


(1) "Party companies are not libertarian in nature because the party is motivated by government ends. Even if the company is owned by a private citizen,[...], it has a function which is different from a regular private company. This is not to say that such companies should not exist, but only that they are not really libertarian in principle."

Your use of "liberterian" here seems to indicate a affiliation to modern popular views that often sees liberterian as equal with free market economy and laissez-faire capitalism and often puts that in oposition to what they say are totalitarian thoughts.

Ayn Rand could be an example of this dualistic view of thinking.

This is however an incorrect use of the term libertarianism, and also a problematic view of the market per se.

Have a look at this wiki link for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarian thought is a family of thought and it has a vide spectrum of family members, from anarchists to economical neoliberalists, as an example.

Hence, criticizing co-opt companies for not fullfilling, what is implied in the argument, as being the true libertarian nature of companies - is a misstake in several levels.

First, it seems to be based on a reductionistic, time typical, view on the "healthy market". Secondly, it is incorrect about the nature of these companies as non libertarian.

I would like to argue that libertarian is just what they are!


(2) "By having such an attractive employment option in just one sector, we dry the human resource well for other sectors. We just don't have the citizens to play around with anymore, and I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that our economy is already very inefficient."

While we might have different opinions on this I would say that IUP's move to strengthen the sence of community in the party and offering a greenhopuse for new, and older people is an attempt of steming the exodus from eIreland. We all need to be more active with new players, and we all need to remeber to take care about older players also. Diversity in the offerings in the eIrish society will make us more attractive again.


(3) In your response to Sennan: "The party company can't keep up its non-profitit(ism) either, because that profit may change, but the wages wont immediately."

People keep repeting things like this. Yet they are not true. The companies are run for profit. Co-ops are not inherently against market economy. Nor are they a "new thing".


(4) "I don't have any problem with socialism (though its a bit of a contradiction with libertarianism). The part about it only employing IUP members... well that's not true. Maybe if it were possible to only have IUP members it would be done; but it's hard to regulate,"

I already commented on the first part, but let it stay in this quote to empazise the fact that it is a core concept in your critizism and in your analysis of how the market works.

The second part is a good final point. It is true that our companies are searching for the right form. They are not ready yet, hence they have some flaws. Give us some time and we will fix it.

I do look forward to reading upcomming articles from you, so keep it up and do not excuse your self overly.

All the best,

e-kane