"Little l" Libertarians, what parts of the party platform do you DISAGREE with?


PDA






WonderNine
July 19, 2004, 04:07 AM
For me it has to be the open borders issue. This is the only part of Libertarian philosophy that I liken to Communism. Strange comparison, I know, but it seems to go according to Libertarian philosophy that secure borders are wrong and that if only there weren't these evil greedy refugees spunging off of the government, open borders would work! Maybe I got that all wrong, maybe alot of Libertarians (not l's) believe that most immigrants are hard workers. That's probably the case. They apparently think that there's alot less government welfare voters among immigrants than U.S. citizens. Hey, that could be the case in reality. I don't know.

Free trade will fix all? I don't know how you can have free trade with a country whos laws treat its workers like slaves and pays its workers at a scale far beneath our own. Free trade with nations that are friendly and have a comparible per capita income and quality of life? Sounds great to me.

With the current world situation as it is, I'm afraid the influx of people would tear this country to shreds if international free trade was immediately adopted with everyone. Would the refugees vote Libertarian? Maybe. But the fact remains that most people here who live under our rich system don't.

But then I thought, or would they? :eek: Does anybody have any information or statistics on voting characteristics of the so called "hard working immigrants" of the 18th-20th centuries? How did they vote?

Some other thoughts were floating around in my head, but I seemed to have lost them, maybe they'll come back to me eventually.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Little l" Libertarians, what parts of the party platform do you DISAGREE with?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Norton
July 19, 2004, 05:31 AM
I have to agree....the open borders plank of the platform is just too much for me to digest. Perhaps if we were in an era when libertarians ruled the planet and they could have their ideal world, it would work.

However the truth is that even if we could have a Libertarian in office, there is no way that there could ever be a Libertarian majority in Congress. As long as we have the give away of services that are occuring in this country, unbridled immigration is a death sentence for this country.

I find my political beliefs closer to the Constitution party in many ways, though I would be leery of a theocratical leadership. Maybe I need to start the Norton Party....

:p

priv8ter
July 19, 2004, 06:42 AM
I'm going to go along and say the open borders policy kind of upsets me, but:

The thought process is, before you open the borders, you get rid of the welfare state. Without free money to lead them here, you might not get the huge influx of people that you think you will.

I'm also not a big believer in any foreign policy that sounds so much like Isolationism. I think there is a double standard on how you can treat people, and how you can treat nations.

On a personal basis, I am okay owning guns and defending myself and my family. And by defending, I mean responding to a threat.

On a national basis, I think wars need to be fought at the time and place of your choseing. With the time being when you are strongest, and the place being 'anywhere-but-here!'

Am I a Hawk? Maybe. So what?!?

Other than that...I think i'm okay with most of their policies.

greg

Skytrooper
July 19, 2004, 07:04 AM
Comparing the LP position on open borders to communism is not "strange." The correct word is "irrational." Communist regimes do not practice open borders.

We certainly don't want free trade. It's much better having the federal government force all Americans to pay sugar prices far above what the rest of the world pays just to benefit a handful of rich sugar growers in Florida and to artificially create a demand for corn syrup, thereby benefiting corn farmers in the Midwest.

Since the 1930s, Democrats and Republicans (and the judges they appointed) have gutted the Bill of Rights like a fish. Politicians of both major parties campaign on the basis of who can shred the Constitution the fastest while audiences of cretins applaude and donate money to their political coffers.

In THR's forums, gun owners rail against the AWB then urge people to vote for George Bush, who supports the AWB. THR posters preach how people must sacrifice individual rights for some greater common good. One THR member recently cited Korematsu v. U.S. favorably; this 1944 Supreme Court decision (long since reversed) upheld imprisoning Americans who had committed no crime. These are the mindsets that allowed the Nazi Party to come to power in Germany in early 1933.

Since the 1939 Miller decision, almost every court in America has ruled the Second Amendment does not protect private citizens. The Fourth Amendment is in tatters. Clinton (and a Republican Congress) curtailed the right of habeas corpus in 1996; Bush further eviscerated it with his odious so-called Patriot Act. The federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 revoked part of the Eighth Amendment. Our most precious individual rights (which are supposed to be unalienable) have either been legislated or judicially "interpreted" out of existence. Trial by jury, intended to be a bulwark against tyranny, has been effectively destroyed by judges preventing jurors from knowing they have the power and right to judge both the facts and law in criminal cases. Judges will not permit defendants at trial to even mention the Constitution to jurors. America is well along the road to becoming a police state and you're worried about the LP platform?
____________________________________________________________
When it comes to freedom, Republicans are fakes, Democrats are clueless.

WonderNine
July 19, 2004, 07:10 AM
Comparing the LP position on open borders to communism is not "strange." The correct word is "irrational."

I did not mean to compare it to communism, I meant to compare to communist thinking (or authoritarian thinking) that communism would work great if only people weren't so greedy. Or in other words, communism would work great if only people weren't people. Sorry, I gotta disregard the rest of your post for now because I'm really tired. I'll read both of your posts tomorrow. :)

spartacus2002
July 19, 2004, 08:37 AM
Definitely the open borders issue.

KMKeller
July 19, 2004, 08:50 AM
Nicki Fellenzer and I were discussing this on Friday. Definitely the open borders issue.

cuchulainn
July 19, 2004, 09:22 AM
but it seems to go according to Libertarian philosophy that secure borders are wrong and that if only there weren't these evil greedy refugees spunging off of the government, open borders would work!Since 9/11, I've been unhappy with the LP's open borders position too, but that's not how I've heard it defended. I think Libertarians say something like: right now we've got a semi-closed border that is woefully porous, allowing the illegals to slip through, but many people well-equiped to make the USA better cannot get through. If we'd open the borders to everyone, then the good would outweigh the bad.

But perhaps I'm mistating the position. Perhaps a Libertarian could tell us better.

I used to buy the good outweighing the bad argument until 9/11. The LP needs to update its border position to account for that attitude. However, perhaps I've missed the update. I have to be honest and say that I don't actively seek out LP position statements.

HankB
July 19, 2004, 09:52 AM
The LP position on open borders seems almost calculated to ALIENATE a great many of their potential supporters, and DELIBERATELY relegate them to the fringe. This takes them more from government minimalists into the realm of anarchists. Maybe there's some other agenda at work behind the scenes?

Sleeping Dog
July 19, 2004, 10:01 AM
Right, the "open borders" issue.

The LP platform would allow the borders to be open, so workers, freeloaders, and terrorists could cross into this country without interference from our border patrol. (most would be in the "worker" category)

So, how is that different than the current policy? Our borders don't seem exactly "watertight" right now.

Regards.

Yowza
July 19, 2004, 10:51 AM
Well, the way I see it, the Libertarian position is all or nothing. Taken individually, most of the policies will not work in our current system. That's why people seem so shocked when they hear about the ideas of getting rid of public schools, welfare, drug laws, social security, etc. That's the only part of it most people hear and then they knee-jerk before listening to what would be done to replace all of this "stuff."

Of course open borders won't work if we have the huge welfare state that we have now, especially with all the talk of amnesty for illegal aliens that's being proposed by a lot of politicians these days. The irony of course, is that we basically already have open borders and nothing is in the works to close them.

Rick

Boats
July 19, 2004, 11:17 AM
There is also a false assumption undergirding the open borders issue: That immigrants come here for the generous social safety net. That is just plain fanciful. They come here because there is work no "real" American will do, let alone a Libertarian.:D

Firethorn
July 19, 2004, 11:36 AM
Open borders. I'd have easy immigration, but you'll have to at least inprocess through customs/immigration. Otherwise I'd have a big wall and land mines if necessary. And I'd definitely not open up until I've killed welfare.
The other point is the stay at home military. I'm sorry, but 'the best defense is a good offense' is a very true statement with today's technology.

Phase 1: Legalize weapons and their carry. (Settle for no committed/felons carrying)
School vouchers. Let parents send their children to any school they can afford. While some would be like 'let them pay out of pocket, and reduce property taxes', I feel that this benefits society by allowing even kids without parents or parents without effective means to get an education. At least in this phase
eliminate corporate welfare
replace social security/medicare with private incentives
reduce taxes
Phase 2: Replace welfare with a work-fare program
legalize drugs, prostitution, various 'victimless crimes'
eliminate various arms of the fed.gov like OSHA,NEA
Phase 3: eliminate the last traces of welfare
open immigration to anybody, with the requirements that they aren't currently wanted for things that would be crimes in the USA, are a likely terrorist, or something like that. And if they aren't coming to the USA under a 'refugee' status, enough money to post bond for a return to their original country.


It's not perfect, but if anybody can point out improvements, I'd be glad to modify it.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 19, 2004, 11:47 AM
There are many of the LP positions I would support to some degree; but not to the same extent the LP wants. However, it seems they would rather have only the hardcore support rather than modify their views to gain some ground short term.

The "open borders" goes too far for my taste; but I would actually like to see some reform of our immigration policy. As it is now, people who would be good, hard workers and a benefit to our economy must jump through ridiculous hoops to come to our country and work. At the same time, people who want to smuggle terrorists, contraband, or just loot and pillage cross the border with impunity.

I'd first like to see some effective border enforcement developed and then see a liberalization of our immigration policies to allow these people to immigrate without the tremendous paperwork and monetary barriers.

The major issue I have with the LP platform is the neo-isolationism they preach as a substitute for foreign policy. I'd much rather fight our battles overseas instead of waiting until they show up on our shore. There is ultimately less bloodshed and destruction when you address a problem in its early stage rather than wait for it to grow out of control. Think of Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s and apply a Libertarian foreign policy to that situation - we would still be cleaning up the mess today and be ill-equipped to do so as well. In the case of the current conflict with terrorists, the LP policy proposals fail miserably.

In short, I want the government more libertarian, not Libertarian.

Zrex
July 19, 2004, 11:55 AM
Since 9/11, I've been unhappy with the LP's open borders position too, but that's not how I've heard it defended. I think Libertarians say something like: right now we've got a semi-closed border that is woefully porous, allowing the illegals to slip through, but many people well-equiped to make the USA better cannot get through. If we'd open the borders to everyone, then the good would outweigh the bad.

Its like gun control. Ban firearms and only the bad guys will have guns. "Close" the borders and only the bad guys will be able to enter the country.

Thats overly simplistic, but I think it gets the point across.

Zrex
July 19, 2004, 12:01 PM
The major issue I have with the LP platform is the neo-isolationism they preach as a substitute for foreign policy. I'd much rather fight our battles overseas instead of waiting until they show up on our shore. There is ultimately less bloodshed and destruction when you address a problem in its early stage rather than wait for it to grow out of control. Think of Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s and apply a Libertarian foreign policy to that situation - we would still be cleaning up the mess today and be ill-equipped to do so as well. In the case of the current conflict with terrorists, the LP policy proposals fail miserably.


This is the problem with the LP ideas. Not that they are wrong when taken as a whole, but if you take one idea and have it stand alone it does not work.

From the LP perspective, if we did not have the horrible foreign policies that we have now, if we were not sending money all over the world and meddling in everyones internal affairs and If we did not have troops stationed all over the world and try to push our culture and values down everyones throats, then we would not be a target for terrorists.

Its the chicken and the egg sort of thing. Without our current foreign policy we would not be able to fight terrorists. Terrorists fight us because of our current foreign policy.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 19, 2004, 12:54 PM
Its the chicken and the egg sort of thing. Without our current foreign policy we would not be able to fight terrorists. Terrorists fight us because of our current foreign policy.

First, I disagree with your assessment that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is caused by our foreign policy. These people want to convert the world to Islam by the sword - that is their stated goal. They single out the United States because its brand of free-market capitalism brings U.S. culture and products into direct conflict with their vision of Islam. This would still happen under an LP economy but the terrorists would have the luxury of an intervention free U.S. to build up their support before finally concentrating on the U.S.

However, let's assume you are correct that past foreign policy caused the problem. How will changing our policy now serve to address the problem we already have? In my mind, it won't. If anything, it will send the signal that terrorism is an effective way to change U.S. policy in your favor and encourage others to try it.

jdege
July 19, 2004, 01:13 PM
My problem with Libertarianism is their means, not their ends.

They propose no meaningful mechanism for getting from where we are to where we should be.

Consider, for example, Social Security. From a Libertarian perspective, it's an abomination. But they have no answer on how to get rid of it, let alone on how to convince the people that they can do better on their own.

Reagan's introduction of 401(k) plans did more towards educating the population on the merits of private investment than anything the LP did.

I see the border issue as similar. Open borders between two Libertarian nations would be non-problematic. Open borders between a semi-libertarian nation and a third-world hell-hole would be a disaster.

As a utopian ideal, Libertarianism isn't bad. It's the only utopian ideal I might consider non-pathological.

But how do we get there from here?

Lenin had an utopian ideal. Should we use his methods?

The Libertarians provide no answers.

fix
July 19, 2004, 01:18 PM
I disagree with them mostly on foreign policy issues. Both the stated positions as well as the implied ones are quite foolish in my view. On domestic policy I am pretty much in line with their views with a few minor exceptions. I am pro-life and I am a fence straddler with regards to the drug policy. I guess when you get right down to it, I agree with them on guns and taxes but not much else.

Well, the way I see it, the Libertarian position is all or nothing.

I agree with that statement in more ways than one. There is that attitude among Libertarians, as well as the reality that so many of their positions are dependent on other positions. There's just no way to back into a Libertarian Government. You pretty much have to wipe the slate clean and start over.

Zrex
July 19, 2004, 01:22 PM
However, let's assume you are correct that past foreign policy caused the problem. How will changing our policy now serve to address the problem we already have? In my mind, it won't. If anything, it will send the signal that terrorism is an effective way to change U.S. policy in your favor and encourage others to try it.

I dont disagree with you.

The two big problems with the LP as I see it is

1.) Their ideas must be taken as a whole for them to actually work
2.) There is no practical (possible?) way to implement them all at once

In an ideal world, where there is no history, the LP may be *the* way. In a complex world such as ours, there are too many other factors to consider. Sometimes things just take a long time, and a pro-freedom mindset is not going to happen overnight. We just have to keep pecking away to try to get our lifestyle (pro-freedom) to become the rule and not the exception.

I just need to remember that incrementalism works both ways. Its long past time to start gradually taking back our freedoms instead of watching them slowly erode.

fix
July 19, 2004, 01:30 PM
I just thought of another huge issue with having unchecked immigration in a democratic country. At some point, you are subject to becoming the victim of a bloodless coup at the ballot box. If 50 million Chinese show up over a period of 10 years and can't find work because the unregulated market has collapsed with no safety net to catch it, they'll just vote in the next Chairman Mao and we're off to the gulag. Of course, I'm being a bit dramatic there, but I think that gets the point across.

How do you maintain a Libertarian Government over the long haul without eliminating immigration?

liliysdad
July 19, 2004, 01:32 PM
legalize drugs, prostitution, various 'victimless crimes'

This right here is where ya'll lose any support you might have from me. Drugs, and to a lesser extent prostitution are far from a "victimless" crime, and if you believe so, youve lost your damn mind. Apparently youve never seen a home broken by a philandering spouse, or the aftermath of a heroin addiction. I have, and will never stand for either to be legal.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 19, 2004, 02:01 PM
I just need to remember that incrementalism works both ways.

Yes, if you can convince people to try part of your idea and it works, you'll have an easier time selling them the rest of it. It also helps gain people who would be turned off by more drastic measures.

The downside is I don't see much evidence of this incrementalist strategy within the LP. It seems to me to be comprised of a lot of people who don't want any compromise at all on principals; which isn't the way our system of government works. If the LP is advancing through incrementalism, then they are moving at such a glacial pace I don't even notice the progress.

On the other hand, it seems like groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.rlc.org/) are having more success with advancing libertarian ideas via incrementalism within the Republican party.

Skytrooper
July 19, 2004, 02:11 PM
The LP position on open borders seems almost calculated to ALIENATE a great many of their potential supporters, and DELIBERATELY relegate them to the fringe. This takes them more from government minimalists into the realm of anarchists. Maybe there's some other agenda at work behind the scenes?

"Anarchy" comes from the Greek word anarchos (having no ruler). The USA was founded on the principle that all sovereignty resides with the people; instead of "rulers" we were supposed to have a limited government with expressly-delegated powers. The only "agenda at work" is that of politicians usurping more authority and curtailing more freedom while an ignorant, apathetic populace does nothing.

Phase 1: a. Legalize weapons and their carry. (Settle for no committed/felons carrying)

Another GCA-68 supporter heard from. Do you realize how easy it is to become a felon in America today? A private citizen who possesses a stick with a handle on it in California is guilty of possessing a billy club and commits a felony. A farmer who fills in a pothole on his own land commits a felony. Smoking a joint in Oklahoma is a felony if a prosecutor wants to charge it that way (and some do). A pocketknife that is legal to carry in South Dakota is a felony to possess in Colorado and several other states. I haven't attended a gun show in over 30 years without watching felonies being committed (usually unintentionally) by decent people.

Firethorn, rather than your 3-phase program, why don't we try something that has never been done before? Have the government actually adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

The major issue I have with the LP platform is the neo-isolationism they preach as a substitute for foreign policy. I'd much rather fight our battles overseas instead of wating until they show up on our shore. There is ultimately less bloodshed and destruction when you address a problem in its early stage rather than wait for it to grow out of control. Think of Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s and apply a Libertarian foreign policy to that situation...

Had a Libertarian foreign policy existed (the foreign policy endorsed by our Founding Fathers), Hitler and Stalin never would have come to power. The U.S. never would have intervened (based on a campaign of disinformation) in World War I, the draconian Versailles treaty would not have been written, and the Nazi Party would never have existed. FDR praised Hitler until 1939. The U.S. did not oppose Stalin in World War II; we ardently supported Stalin and handed tens of millions of Europeans to communist domination in 1945.

It was this misguided thinking that JFK and LBJ used to involve us in the Vietnam war (after LBJ lied to the public about the Gulf of Tonkin incident). That turned out real well for everyone involved. I spent a year killing people I had nothing against, and for what? We now trade with the same communist government we then claimed to oppose. If the U.S. government is opposed to fascism, why did it use an English translation of the Nazi Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938 as the basis for GCA-68? Yes, I know GCA-68 (and every other anti-gun law) is unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to bother very many people around here.

Cosmoline
July 19, 2004, 02:17 PM
I am a libertarian in spirit and philosophy, no question about it. But the Party is a bit nutty. I poked my nose into the local party a few years back and found it to be a weekly BS session with ZERO interest in actually getting someone elected. Also, the local party was quite dogmatic and endorsed some bizarre notions which appeared to be the hobby horses of the cabal that led it. They were unrealistic, to put it mildly.

fix
July 19, 2004, 02:17 PM
dealing_with_buffoon_mode

Note to self: Never take advice on how to win friends and influence people from Libertarians.

This is why they will never be of any consequence.

Zrex
July 19, 2004, 02:21 PM
The downside is I don't see much evidence of this incrementalist strategy within the LP.

I dont either. I was speaking of positive incrementalism as something we should all be doing as an alternative to the "pie in the sky" LP promises of a utopian freedom.

And in an earlier post, which I expect no one to remember, I actually declared myself to be a former Libertarian who has decided it was best to throw his efforts into the RLC because, among other things, they can get elected! :D

Go Ron Paul!

Oleg Volk
July 19, 2004, 02:30 PM
I actually agree with LP on every point. Scary. I just wish they advertised more effectively. Perhaps I need to start making libertarian posters, not just pro-RKBA graphics.

Skytrooper
July 19, 2004, 03:00 PM
Note to self: Never take advice on how to win friends and influence people from Libertarians. This is why they will never be of any consequence.

(1) Of course, you had no problem with the person (excuse me, buffoon) I was responding to using [tinfoil_hat_mode] as a pejorative in his post.

(2) I am not a Libertarian; I am a libertarian. It is unfortunate if the distinction is too subtle for you to appreciate.

(3) I do not seek to "win friends" with totalitarians and other people who fail to recognize unalienable individual rights and politicians, judges, and LEOs who constantly betray their oaths to support the U.S. Constitution.
____________________________________________________________
To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

fix
July 19, 2004, 03:08 PM
Confirmed.

Skytrooper
July 19, 2004, 03:39 PM
To Bartholomew Roberts,

I received your pm.

Evidently it was OK for the poster I responded to using [tinfoil_hat_mode] to denigrate libertarians, but "obnoxious" for me to reply in kind.

Having read many of your posts and seeing you held the position of "moderator," I knew my days on THR would be short-lived. I bow to your authority. I will no longer make any political posts on THR. Since I suffer from a terminal condition thanks to people who share your political beliefs, I will not be making posts anywhere much longer.

How the children of the American Revolution can have sunk to such depths of docility and ignorance is beyond my comprehension. May you and your kind be comfortable with the police state you zealously defend.

fix
July 19, 2004, 03:49 PM
:scrutiny::confused::rolleyes:

"Because you do not agree with me, you must be an idiot" appears to be the standard Libertarian response for an awful lot of things.

Oleg Volk
July 19, 2004, 04:36 PM
Well, there's always "stooge of the evil UN overlords" explanation ;) Let's keep this chat friendly or at least civil.

TallPine
July 19, 2004, 04:48 PM
Apparently youve never seen a home broken by a philandering spouse, or the aftermath of a heroin addiction. I have, and will never stand for either to be legal.
So I take it that you would like to make adultery illegal also ...?

Bartholomew Roberts
July 19, 2004, 05:06 PM
I received your pm.

The reason it was a pm was to spare other members an off-topic dialogue that only involves us. It was intended a courtesy both to them and to you.

Evidently it was OK for the poster I responded to using [tinfoil_hat_mode] to denigrate libertarians, but "obnoxious" for me to reply in kind.

If you believe that a personal attack has been made on a member of THR, please use the "Report this post to a moderator" function rather than respond in kind.

Having read many of your posts and seeing you held the position of "moderator," I knew my days on THR would be short-lived. I bow to your authority. I will no longer make any political posts on THR.

Self-martyrdom will not be necessary. Please simply refrain from making personal attacks on other members whether you feel justified in the effort or not.

Now if you would like to discuss small "L"-libertarianism, this is the thread for it. If you have issues with my moderation here, I'd ask you to please PM me as a courtesy to the other users who don't care to read about that topic.

RealGun
July 19, 2004, 06:03 PM
On the other hand, it seems like groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus are having more success with advancing libertarian ideas via incrementalism within the Republican party. _ Bartholomew Roberts

I am not so sure, based upon observing that the RLC adopted the LP platform verbatim, still unwilling to adapt to any world other than their perfect one and failing to demonstrate any real intent to truly integrate into the Republican Party. Without making some common ground more obvious, fundamental conservatism basically, I don't see them being influential. They will go off and have their little caucus meeting and not be relevant to the party. Their first order of business should have been where to compromise and how their culture would need to adapt. It's just all to radical and cult like to suit me.

Like others, the open borders thing killed it for me. I lost all my house money in California to fallig property value, because my 500 unit condo was taken over by young Nicaraguans, sometimes 20-30 to a unit and nothing but mattresses but only legal for a "single family". Tell me we need that. I don't think so.

Glock Glockler
July 19, 2004, 07:30 PM
So I take it that you would like to make adultery illegal also ...?

Adultery is a contract violation and would thus be a civil and not a criminal issue.

My beefs with the LP are in 1) foreign policy, 2) abortion, and 3) borders.

The isolationist policy simply does not work, we cannot completely insulate ourselves from the happenings of the world. I'm not trying to justify the imperialist Neo-con policy but I do believe we ought to have at least one finger in the pie to prevent it from being thrown in our faces. I think we could and should SEVERELY cut back our global meddling and try to dominate the planet economically through trade instead of flexing our muscles and sending in the military to stabalize a region every a few men in some 3rd world craphole get into a dispute over a goat.

Abortion - not that I want to get into this subject per se but I have heard very convincing arguements on both sides of the issues on libertarian grounds. The party would be infinately getter off if they said as much and left that position to the individual candidate, as there are both pro-life and pro-choice libertarians. Imagine that, giving individuals the choice instead of a centrally planned position.

As far as border control goes, I certainly don't think we should allow hordes of people to come into the country, I'd prefer a somewhat cherry picked immigration policy that focused on people with in demand skills that were not avowed socialists but it seems that the powers that be do everything to keep quality people out but will roll out the red carpet for an illegal Mexican criminal. I know very people that have jobs waiting for them along with relatives here for support but they happen to be white, Christian and educated.

Rebeldon
July 19, 2004, 09:06 PM
I disagree with their isolationism, pro-abortion stand, and they seem to WANT to lose every election.

Chris Rhines
July 19, 2004, 09:10 PM
I haven't read the LP platform lately, so I wandered over to www.lp.org/issues/ and took a look around.

Their position statements are excessively complex and mealy-mouthed, but I find little to disagree with in practice. In principle, the LP does not go far enough in eliminating coercive government and establishing a fully voluntary society.

- Chris

priv8ter
July 19, 2004, 10:49 PM
Lillysdad said:

Drugs, and to a lesser extent prostitution are far from a "victimless" crime, and if you believe so, youve lost your damn mind. Apparently youve never seen a home broken by a philandering spouse, or the aftermath of a heroin addiction. I have, and will never stand for either to be legal.

Having had many friends who have returned from happy trips to Amsterdam, I am going to disagree with your statement. If someone wants to be a 'philandering spouse' they are going to do it whether it's with a prostitute or not. I do a gree with you...Adultery

As for the 'aftermath of heroin addition' unless that person was strapped down to a bed, and addicted to that drug against their will, then becomming adicted was a choice they made.

I think all drugs should be legal, but that doesn't mean I have any intention of trying any recreational drugs. I've made it almost 30 years without smoking pot...I think I can make it another 60...

But, if someone wants to help control the population by wasting their life in a stoned(but Legal!) haze...good for them.

greg

PAC 762
July 19, 2004, 11:30 PM
"Because you do not agree with me, you must be an idiot" appears to be the standard Libertarian response for an awful lot of things.

That's because it's usually true. :D ;) :neener:

liliysdad
July 19, 2004, 11:36 PM
I think all drugs should be legal, but that doesn't mean I have any intention of trying any recreational drugs. I've made it almost 30 years without smoking pot...I think I can make it another 60...

Thank God the LP has absolutely no traction...Americas drug problem is probably the number one reason I got into law enforcement, and the one thing that makes it so important....I dont care how "harmless" it is, I dont want it in my town, or in my state, or in my nation.

I dont want my child thinking its "ok" to only harm yourself, which is never true, it harms the family and friends of that person far more than the person themselves.

Prostitution is a whole other matter. Sure, it will never go away, but is that any reason to make it OK? Hell no its not...as long as people do itm they should be punished.

Justin
July 19, 2004, 11:42 PM
I find little to disagree with in the Libertarian platform. I simply have issues with the way that the party itself has been managed. Harry Browne did a wonderful job of siphoning money out of the LP coffers and doing very little with it to further LP gains. Now that he seems to be mostly out of the picture, I'd like to think that the LP will make some headway.

Regardless of my disagreements with the party, at this point I'm far more likely to cast a vote for Badnarik than Bush come November.

I'd also like to note that it's really not an all-or-nothing proposition. People talk about electing a libertarian or two, and all of the chicken littles start shouting about how the sky is falling. Personally, I think that electing a libertarian or twelve to the Congress could only serve for positive ends. You know, inject a bit of much-needed free-thinking, pro-individual thought into the process. I hardly think such a proposition would be the end of the world.

priv8ter
July 20, 2004, 12:11 AM
I dont want my child thinking its "ok" to only harm yourself, which is never true, it harms the family and friends of that person far more than the person themselves.

Then take the time to raise your children right! Show your children what happens to people that become addicted to drugs. I am sick of seeing my state and nation waste tax money fighting a problem that will NEVER go away when they could be making tax money off legally selling the product. Of course, then people like you could never enter law enforcement just to fight this 'problem' that will never go away.

Prostitution is a whole other matter. Sure, it will never go away, but is that any reason to make it OK? Hell no its not...as long as people do itm they should be punished.

So. An attractive young lady has a product/commodity to offer up for sale, and she should be punished for trying to get fair market value for said product/commodity? :scrutiny: I'm sure all those ladies that used to work at the Mustang ranch would much rather clean houses for $8 an hour.


sigh

greg

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 12:16 AM
I have no desire to see my government run on tax dollars made form drugs...and the problem may not go away, but is subsiding, at least in my microcosm..and thats all I can do. As long as the mindset you and your party perpetuate, you are right, it will not go away, it will only be rationalized. Again, I am glad this party has no momentum, as anarchy is the last thign I care to see.

BTW, I am raising my child right..but if a behavior is accepted in culture, a child can be shown right from wrong, but ince they leave the home, there are no consequences.

I , for one, have no problems with the jails being full of drug users, whether they be "social" pot smokers, or dealers.

Zundfolge
July 20, 2004, 12:23 AM
My problem with Libertarianism is their means, not their ends.

Thats my biggest problem with the LP as well. That and the fact that the LP seems to see Republicans as a greater threat to liberty then Democrats.

On a personal level, most of the folk I've dealt with in the Libertarian Party have an almost phobic reaction to Christians and Christianity ... not just that they want separation of church and state, but that being a person of faith should preclude you from holding public office because they might allow their faith to influence an official decision.


On the open borders thing, I'll agree with them after we've dismantled the welfare state and rid ourselves of all gun laws but not a second before.

On drug legalization ... I agree with them, but they have to stop treating those who wish to see drugs stay illegal as the equivalent of book burners or slave traders.

On isolationism, I believe that as believers in liberty it is our duty to spread liberty all over the globe ... clearly there is a bit too much adventurism and not enough thinking behind some of our international exploits but by God we should be willing to help those out there who want liberty and be ready to kill those who get in our way.

The "all or nothing" attitude of many in the LP is typical of ideologs who put doctrinal purity above pragmatism, and the exuberance with which many in the GOP leadership pander to and compromise with the left is typical of the GOP's lack if ideological commitment.

In short, the LP is too idealistic and not realistic enough ... the GOP tends toward being too willing to compromise their ideals in the name of pragmatism. Thats why I see the RLC as the best of both sides, and the best group to reconcile the LP and GOP.



In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't if us "small 'l' libertarians" agreed with the LP platform 100% ... I don't believe they have a snowball's chance in hell of actually implementing any of it under the LP banner (note that Ron Paul has done more to implement libertarian ideals as a Republican then an Libertarian).

Glock Glockler
July 20, 2004, 12:42 AM
I , for one, have no problems with the jails being full of drug users, whether they be "social" pot smokers, or dealers.

That's brilliant, now just substitute "drug users" for "gun owners" and you'd make a magnificent anti.

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 12:53 AM
I dont want my child thinking its "ok" to only harm yourself, which is never true, it harms the family and friends of that person far more than the person themselves.

Prostitution is a whole other matter. Sure, it will never go away, but is that any reason to make it OK? Hell no its not...as long as people do itm they should be punished.

All drugs will eventually be legalized as will prostitution. Someday pawns of the drug companies will be a thing of the past and this part of our history will be looked at as a strange chapter just as Alcohol Prohibition is looked at now.

You're fighting a hopeless and ridiculously costly battle against some drugs which the government ships in themselves anyways. There are more drugs on the streets than ever before as well as more people in prison. More cops getting killed. More abuses of power and more infringements against our rights as a result of this silly war on yet another vice of certain people. Most of the prison population is locked up over drug offenses. Imagine the resources that could be freed up to solve REAL crime. I'd rather have a murderer behind bars than two recreational pot smokers, but that's just me. :rolleyes:

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 12:57 AM
To bad most of your "real crimes" are a byproduct of drugs....ya'll really ought to take the tin foil off for a while...life is not a conspiracy, and I pray to God (yeah, Im a Christian) that you are incorrect, ad drugs/prostitution is not legalized in my lifetime. We will have truly lost our nation at that point.

jdege
July 20, 2004, 12:58 AM
Zundfolge - I'm just reading Hugh Hewitt's "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat - Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends Upon It."

You may not agree with everything he says, but his analysis of the interaction between party regulars, occasional voters, principled pragmatists, movement activists, and fanatics is worth reading.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 12:59 AM
Again, I am glad this party has no momentum, as anarchy is the last thign I care to see. Does anyone else find it the least bit ironic that there are people out there who think that anarchists would form a political party?

:rolleyes:

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 12:59 AM
To bad most of your "real crimes" are a byproduct of drugs....

Because drugs are illegal! :banghead:

Apparently that's not the case for you, but I can die knowing I've lived a full life without ever having kicked a pot smoker's door down.

ya'll really ought to take the tin foil off for a while...life is not a conspiracy,

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

and I pray to God (yeah, Im a Christian) that you are incorrect, ad drugs/prostitution is not legalized in my lifetime. We will have truly lost our nation at that point.

Oh dear lord, what would ever happen if we returned to the drug laws of 1913? We surely would have lost our nation at that point. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

BTW, I am raising my child right..but if a behavior is accepted in culture, a child can be shown right from wrong, but ince they leave the home, there are no consequences.

I , for one, have no problems with the jails being full of drug users, whether they be "social" pot smokers, or dealers.

It's for the children...right?

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 01:22 AM
Youre damn right it is, for my child, at least. It is the reason I became an LEO, to make a difference in MY town, in MY state, in MY home, and the home of MY child...I am not sure I have, but I know I have done a lot mre than I would have by sitting at home, letting everything rot around me. The drug laws of 1913 are irrelvant...people had a modicum of morality, and the harm that drugs do was not widely known at that point.

BTW, Ive never kicked the door in on a potsmoker, they are usually a lot easier than that.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 01:31 AM
As opposed to say, oh, I dunno, a raging drunk?

priv8ter
July 20, 2004, 01:37 AM
people had a modicum of morality

Morality by whose standards sir, your's?

I live my life by MY morals, and no law on the books can cause me to lead my life otherwise.

and the harm that drugs do was not widely known at that point

Kind of like fast food hunh? I bet you wouldn't need to break down the door at McDonalds either.


But now I have allowed my discussion to vere from what I dislike about the Libertarian Party. Sorry to hijack the thread.

greg

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 01:38 AM
I never made the delineation between the two...if you have to smoke pot, do it at home, dont get on the street...dont leave home, and damn sure dont drive..same goes for alcohol...your ass will be in county.

priv8ter
July 20, 2004, 01:54 AM
liliysdad, I totally agree!

Please don't think that because I feel drugs should be legal that I think you should be able to smoke and drive, or stand on the street corner toking on a bong!

The drugs would be allowed in your home! And, if someone is caught driving stoned, or causes an accident while 'under the influence' they need to get punished just like if they were drunk!

Strike that. Not punished like if they were drunk under todays laws. Punished like people SHOULD be punished under MY drunk driving laws. Being pulled over for a DUI should mean you have to face something more like an 'Attempted Murder' Charge than a 'pay a fine and don't do it again' charge.

I have a brother-in-law that was involved in a hit-and-run, and blew a .11 after the cops finally caught hime, and because no one was hurt, he got off with a fine and having to attend an alcohol prevention class for two days. I'm still mad about that. He could have run over a cross-walk full of kids and not realized it.

Libertarianism is all about Personal Responsibilty. In this case, my brother-in-law failed to show this responsibility. When someone display a lack of this personal responsibility...he should GO AWAY.


Boy...you folks better hope I'm never in charge.

greg

DRZinn
July 20, 2004, 01:56 AM
On the open-borders issue: it would only work if we could FIRST eliminate the welfare state. The illegal immigrants are a problem only because we give them things. Stop giving away the farm, and they can all flood in, no problem.

They apparently think that there's alot less government welfare voters among immigrants than U.S. citizens.

Shouldn't matter. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to be a permanent barrier to socialism/communism/pluralism/whatever you want to call it, no matter how many people might be persuaded to vote for it. The problem is that it was impossible to anticipate things like automobiles and the internet and incorporate protections for them into the documents. Also impossible to anticipate was that the sheeple would let themselves be manipulated into favoring socialist policy because it's FTC, or the the courts would uphold such pap or that.... well, you see what I mean. Hindsight is 20/20. They still did a kick-ass job, so much so that their intent is obvious to any rational being that actually READS the Constitution. Then again, they also didn't count on politicians becoming such....ummm.... politicians. The Thirteenth Amendment, the first article of the Fourteenth, and the entire Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth should have been entirely unnecessary.

DRZinn
July 20, 2004, 02:02 AM
As far as what I disagree with, many Libertarians believe that the principle that no man has a right to initiate violence against any other man means that all war is wrong. But think about it: if violence has already been initiated, but not against you, should you stand and watch rather than step in and initiate violence against the aggressor? And when do you react to a threat to yourself?

-When he puts his hand on the butt of the gun?
-When he unsnaps the holster?
-When he draws the gun?
-When he points the gun at you?
-When he puts his finger into the trigger guard?
-When the hammer draws back?
-Or only when the gun actually discharges into your chest?

Justin
July 20, 2004, 02:14 AM
Doc Zinn- Nothing in the N.A.P. precludes one from acting in defense of another.

As for your other question, self defense via the N.A.P. is no different than self-defense is now. In other words, you have to make that choice for yourself, at the time of the encounter.

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 02:46 AM
Youre damn right it is, for my child, at least. It is the reason I became an LEO, to make a difference in MY town, in MY state, in MY home, and the home of MY child...

Far as I can tell, you aren't "making a difference". When you arrest the murderer, rapist, thief, I cheer you. When you get shot in the head by a dope smoker whose home you raided for no reason I can't help but laugh at your mixed up priorities. Really wanna "make a difference"? Try volunteering at the local homeless shelter or an animal shelter.

I am not sure I have, but I know I have done a lot mre than I would have by sitting at home, letting everything rot around me.

That's a pretty dark worldview. "Protect and Serve" is not about some doom and gloom scenario of the sky is falling and "the more adults I arrest who are doing things to themselves I disapprove of" the better.

There's not as much opportunity to advance as a do gooder in this world if you're not busy clawing over the top of everyone else and trampling a bunch of people along the way. People don't want to be told how to live their lives and what they can and cannot put in their bodies. That's how it always will be. You're fighting an immoral battle of which the "solution" is worse than the so called problem.

The drug laws of 1913 are irrelvant...people had a modicum of morality, and the harm that drugs do was not widely known at that point.

Yea, sure. There was all kinds of great things going on in 1913. The Armenian Genocide. The Second Balkan War. Everyone conspiring with each other to kill everyone else prior to WWI. The Mexican revolution. Lots of morality back then. The "harm that drugs do" or that drugs can do was just as widely known as it is today. Just as it was known that bullets fly really fast.

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 02:50 AM
Libertarianism is all about Personal Responsibilty.

Right, personal responsibility. HE DIDN'T hit anyone. Nobody was hurt. What you're advocating is draconian punishment for people partaking activities that you deem unsafe. Not Libertarianism.

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 08:16 AM
These views literally nauseate me. What you propose tears the very fibers of this nation to shreds..and you call it freedom. Soddom and Gomorrah were very free as well. Liberty does not mean unrule..and there must be moral checks and balances...

By the way, I have made a difference. The fact that I am out there means drugs have lost one more victim. I won that battle, and will live to fight the war.

Glock Glockler
July 20, 2004, 09:58 AM
Why should I be able to drink plenty of alcohol but not be able to have a joint?

Are pot smokers out of control maniacs with more strength and ferocity than the Hulk while drunks are all calm and peaceful as Hindu cows?

jdege
July 20, 2004, 10:07 AM
Libertarians don't believe there should be no social controls, they believe that the most social controls should be imposed by organizations other than government.

Liberals want a society in which individuals are responsible to nothing other than to the federal government.

That's very much not what the libertarians are proposing.

jacketch
July 20, 2004, 12:39 PM
By the way, I have made a difference. The fact that I am out there means drugs have lost one more victim. I won that battle, and will live to fight the war.

I agree with your position and thank you for the job you are doing.

Treylis
July 20, 2004, 12:47 PM
I dont want my child thinking its "ok" to only harm yourself, which is never true, it harms the family and friends of that person far more than the person themselves.

You know, my mother thinks that I'd be harming myself by keeping guns in the home, as she's an extreme anti, even to the point of not liking pepper spray. She doesn't know I spend countless hours on gunboards and have a collection of weaponry. Hell, she doesn't even know I own a single gun or that I've carried in her presence many times.

Sorry, but denying people the right to do something just because they might abuse it is morally wrong. What if that person has no family or friends? What if their family or friends don't care?

Soddom and Gomorrah were very free as well. Liberty does not mean unrule..and there must be moral checks and balances... ]

I'm an advocate of extreme morality--Objectivism--but my moral rules just aren't anywhere close to yours, one of the fundamental ones being the Non-Aggression Principle, which states that the initiation of force against another human being or their property is always wrong. Unfortunately, your moral rules seem to be interfering with, among other things, my right to property.

We'll leave you alone to think and do as you will. Why not just leave us alone as well?

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 12:51 PM
Actually, I wont, and I cant, due the the oath I took to defend and enforce the laws before me. Plain common sense says that drugs cause problems...and it is my job and duty to ddo what I can to kill this cancer.

Glock Glockler
July 20, 2004, 01:34 PM
I'm curious, what law, if passed, would you not enforce?

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 01:37 PM
I honestly cannot tell you that...Each and every occasion is different. I can, however, tell you that i will enforce any law pertaining to the curtailment of drug use and distribution.

fix
July 20, 2004, 02:15 PM
The drugs would be allowed in your home! And, if someone is caught driving stoned, or causes an accident while 'under the influence' they need to get punished just like if they were drunk!

I'll accept that position as soon as you show me a breathalyzer device that can detect the presence of marijuana or crack or herion or.....

So just how do you advocates of individual rights propose that we enforce the laws?

Would you allow an officer to incarcerate an individual and subject them to a blood test based on his discretion? Think about unintended consequences folks.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 02:48 PM
By the way, I have made a difference. The fact that I am out there means drugs have lost one more victim. I won that battle, and will live to fight the war. Yeah, those drugs just up and jumped into that guy's bloodstream all of their own accord. In a related story, last week a gun just jumped up and killed a child all on its own.

Face it. The drug war has been lost. It's been touted as a complete failure in practically every publication from the New York Times to National Review. I have not ever seen one person stand up and offer up a plan for winning the so-called "war" on drugs that doesn't involve stomping our few remaining civil rights straight into the ground.

But hey, if it keeps Johnny the fifteen year old wasteoid from toking up, then I guess it's worth all of the mulitple billions of dollars spent, and the gutting of the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments.

Oh, but wait, what's that? Johnny just retired to the basement with a bong and a dimebag. Oh well, I suppose it's still all money well spent, even though Johnny still has the means and ability to get the stuff.

So just how do you advocates of individual rights propose that we enforce the laws? fix, if drugs were legalized, I see no reason why the methods used to determine if a user is high would suddenly become invalid. I'm sure any of the LEO's here on the board could provide you with any number of drug-related field sobriety tests.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 02:55 PM
I honestly cannot tell you that...Each and every occasion is different. Let's say that on a routine traffic stop you came across a fellow with a 20 round AR magazine that was manufactured after Sept. 13, 1994. Would you charge him with felony violation of Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Sec. 922 of the United States code?

:confused:

DRZinn
July 20, 2004, 02:59 PM
The vast majority of drug-related crime is a direct result of the prohibition of drugs. Legalize them and most of it disappears overnight.

I have never smoked pot in my life, nor do I plan to. I know no-one who smokes it or sells it. Nonetheless, I could leave my apartment (in a nice suburban area) and in one hour be back, lighting a joint. My point is that the illegality of marijuana has not stopped me from using it. I don't use it because I think it's stupid. I am in the majority on this. Legalize it, and you won't see the predicted masses of potheads roaming the streets wasted, anymore than CCW laws return states to the wild west.

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 03:08 PM
I cannot enforce Federal laws..I would have to call a Federal agency to do so. If I found something else to get him on, and wanted to really nail him, Id make that call.

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 03:24 PM
By the way, I have made a difference. The fact that I am out there means drugs have lost one more victim. I won that battle, and will live to fight the war.

Care to elaborate?

:scrutiny:

Daniel T
July 20, 2004, 03:26 PM
I'll accept that position as soon as you show me a breathalyzer device that can detect the presence of marijuana or crack or herion or.....

So just how do you advocates of individual rights propose that we enforce the laws?

Absolutely not needed. If a driver is incapable of driving safely, they may be charged with DWi, DUI, whatever. Having a measurable BAC is handy as evidence, but is not required for a conviction. There is a reason why a field sobriety test can be administered, and a reason that police cars have cameras.

DWI = Driving While Intoxicated. Not "Driving While Intoxicated By Alcohol".

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 03:55 PM
Care to elaborate?


Sure. I have never once taken any type of illict or illegal drug. I was simply saying that I refuse to take that fall.

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 04:24 PM
Since I don't know who I'm really talking to here, I'm gonna leave it at that. :scrutiny: Are you on vacation or something? You were responding to me at 3am CST and now you're here again.

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 04:28 PM
it couldnt have been 3am, but it was after midnight..and now im at work...

priv8ter
July 20, 2004, 04:29 PM
If I found something else to get him on, and wanted to really nail him, Id make that call.

So, what you really mean is:

DRUGS are bad


But, using your position of power to selectivly enforce SOME laws to get someone you REALLY want to nail, is okay.

That sounds like a brand of morality I certainly want enforced on me.

The 'Free State Project' is sounding better and better each day.

greg

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 04:35 PM
Let me clarify. I cannot enforce federal laws....

Hers a scenario. Say I stop a guy for 20 over..and smell a strong odor or marijuana. I search the vehicle, and find a substantial amount. In the search, i find the magazine. I coould, and might, call the ATF up about the mag....after I charge him locally. I doubt I would, but I could, depending on the individual. If th emagazine was all I found, it would be overlooked.

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 04:36 PM
it couldnt have been 3am, but it was after midnight..and now im at work...

Find any drug dealers under your desk?

WonderNine
July 20, 2004, 04:39 PM
But, using your position of power to selectivly enforce SOME laws to get someone you REALLY want to nail, is okay.

That sounds like a brand of morality I certainly want enforced on me.

It's always ok as long as THEY have the power. When somebody else has that power then it becomes a bad thing. Retired police are famous for this attitude.

liliysdad
July 20, 2004, 04:41 PM
Find any drug dealers under your desk?

I was waiting for that one. I am reserve Officer. i have a normal 40+ hr a week job, and put at least 20 more in on the weekends, at no pay. I do it to help the community, to make a difference.

fix
July 20, 2004, 04:44 PM
Absolutely not needed. If a driver is incapable of driving safely, they may be charged with DWi, DUI, whatever. Having a measurable BAC is handy as evidence, but is not required for a conviction. There is a reason why a field sobriety test can be administered, and a reason that police cars have cameras.

Sounds pretty simple, but really what you just said was that yes, you would prefer officer discretion be the sole arbiter of...roadside justice as it were. This opens the door for gross infringement of 4th Amendment rights whether you realize it or not.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Little l" Libertarians, what parts of the party platform do you DISAGREE with?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!