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

[WonderNine]

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? 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.

 

[Norton]

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....

 

[priv8ter]

Me too

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]

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]

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]

Definitely the open borders issue.

 

[KMKeller]

Nicki Fellenzer and I were discussing this on Friday. Definitely the open borders issue.

 

[cuchulainn]

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]

[tinfoil_hat_mode] 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? [/tinfoil_hat_mode]

 

[Sleeping Dog]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Firethorn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 are having more success with advancing libertarian ideas via incrementalism within the Republican party.

 

[Skytrooper]

[tinfoil_hat_mode] 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? [/tinfoil_hat_mode]

[dealing_with_buffoon_mode] "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. [/dealing_with_buffoon_mode]

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]

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.