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

[Justin]

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?

 

[WonderNine]

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.

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]

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]

As opposed to say, oh, I dunno, a raging drunk?

 

[priv8ter]

Hmmm....

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]

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]

I totally agree!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm curious, what law, if passed, would you not enforce?

 

[liliysdad]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[DRZinn]

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]

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.