Which is, of course, all very well except that it demonstrates just how pissing ignorant students are, even at our "top" universities. And so, since they have fired the opening salvo, I feel duty-bound to reply (oh, and it is a pleasure too).
Let us take the first idiot into our stride, shall we?
Guy Levin, President of OUCA, said, “I’m looking forward to the visit, and I’m sure it will be of interest to some of OUCA’s members.
“Regardless, I think that a vote for the Libertarian Party is a wasted vote. Those who agree with broadly libertarian principles of lower taxation and less state interference would be best served by a Conservative government."
You are, Guy, without doubt, a fucking moron. Those who believe in "lower taxation and less state interference" might be better served by a Conservative government, but not even tribalist fools like The Dude think that those desiring "broadly libertarian principles" will be best served by a Tory government.
The Tories have absolutely committed themselves against tax cuts and not a single one of their policies advocates less government on any level.
The Tories have absolutely committed themselves to remaining within the EU; one of the singularly most damaging entities on the planet. Further, since the EU controls a significant amount of our legislation, a goodly amount of things that the Tories are promising are simply not possible.
Furthermore, libertarianism is about both economic and social freedom and if you think that the Tories are pro the latter, then you are so stupid that you should never open your mouth ever again.
Now, you may believe that the Tories are the only other party that has a chance of getting into power, but that is an entirely different argument. After all, if all of the people that I know personally who hold their nose whilst voting for the Conservatives actually voted for a party that they believed in, then so-called minor parties might have a better chance of getting anywhere.
“I personally disagree with many of the Libertarian Party’s proposed policies, such as the total abolition of income taxes...
Why? Do you think that this tax—which was introduced to fight the Napoleonic Wars—is in some way morally right? Or is it that you are so used to the idea that you will happily grant the government access to your intimate earning detail because... well... that's just what one does?
Let me quote the Adam Smith Institute again, if I may.
If the government sector had grown only in line with inflation, rather than far above it, taxpayers would be £200 billion better off – enough to abolish income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax.
But hey! Guy's only a student: I don't expect him actually to look up any figures. He's at Oxford, you know, and Oxford students are just the cleverest, most well-informed chaps in the entire country, don'cha know (they aren't. That was sarcasm. I've known too many of them to believe that shit. It's a great pity that they all seem to believe it).
... the NHS...
Because that's just great isn't it? Ten times more deaths from C. difficile than any other country on the world and 17,000 people a year dead, unnecessarily, because you support a state monopoly. I hope that you fucking pray for forgiveness for supporting the unnecessary deaths, of 47 people a day, every fucking night, sunshine.
And I hope that your god forgives you, because I won't.
... and state pensions,” he added.
Riiiight. Because state pensions are just the absolute best, aren't they? Anyone remember the desultory rise of a few years ago? What was it: 75p a week? Nice one.
As I have consistently pointed out, NICs is not only a Ponzi scheme con but also costs more than twice as much as comparable private schemes: but then, students wouldn't know anything about that, would they?
Another Oxford student, who describes himself as a Liberal Democrat, said, “From their website, the Libertarian Party’s main policy seems to be abolishing income tax. That’s just infeasible in the modern era. They don’t offer any realistic solutions or projected figures. To me, their income tax policy seems irrational and ridiculous.
Of course it does, my poppet; but that is why we are coming to speak to you. Because, you see, we have actually done the number-crunching and we know what we can afford. Unlike you, you see, we have actually trawled through the government's spending figures and we know, pretty much, where everything is spent.
“If they are coming to Oxford to talk about their policies, I’m sure any audience would tear them to pieces.”
Oh, I'm looking forward to it: believe me. We are going to shake up your comfortable, middle-class, dissociated-from-the-grunts assumptions and your nice, social democrat lives. We are going to quote figures that you have never heard of; we are going to show you why your policies are not merely wrong-headed but actively evil.
We are going to pull you fuckers to pieces and if just a few of you go away and contemplate what you have heard, then we will consider it a victory.
Martin Nelson, President of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats criticised the party ‘s policy line on the grounds that its practical application was too inflexible.
He argued, “Real freedom of choice depends upon the economic situation in which you find yourself. We simply do not think that you can take a policy [of libertarianism] and extend it to every situation.”
Bollocks. Either you are free to make your own choices or you are not. How many on The Times rich list are from humble backgrouds? Did they assume that they could never become multi-millionaires?
Now, I'm aware that it might be difficult to explain the problems of the poverty trap to a bunch of middle-class student wankers who assume that, because they are at Oxford, they are the creme de la creme, but we shall do our very best.
Whatever people might think, we are not about supporting the rich but about giving the poor the opportunity to shine. We are not about holding people back, but about giving everyone the chance to be great.
That the middle- and upper-class pricks of Oxford should disagree with this aim is not surprising, but it should be challenged.
UPDATE: it has been pointed out to me that I may have been a little harsh with these young student types, and possibly that is the case.
However, what it is indicative of is the unthinking, knee-jerk statist attitude of the young (and it is distressingly prevalent in the not-so-young too); we can't do x because... because... well, we just can't.
Seriously, I did rather hope that there might be a little more contemplation from Oxford students. But no, apparently the audience will "tear [us] to pieces". We shall see...