NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this will kick of a firestorm (hopefully no flaming however), so please let me explain and excuse the long post.

I know many in these forums are members of or are inclined to follow the Libertarian Party. Even more are little "l" libertarians. A few times in these forums, I have expressed my disagreement with the Libertarian Party. Understandably, I've received some hostile responses (usually if not always deserved).

Anyway, the fact that many people here who I respect say they are Libertarians made me go back and double-check my view of the LP.

Reading the LP platform, however, I honestly (and I know this is rude, but it is true) couldn't stop laughing. There are no doubt many things I would disagree with in the Democratic platform or a Republican may disagree with in the Republican platform. I could barely find a handful of things in the LP platform that I could agree with. To me, most positions seemed outrageous or bizarre.

So, I thought I'd see if the Libertarians on here are aware of their party's positions and if they can explain why these positions make sense.

[EDIT: I have put some admittedly inflammatory headers on many of the examples below. This is partially to gain attention (and, I admit, partially a dig). But I don't plan on debating with anyone who answers about these examples. (I will debate if asked to, however, as I'm not trying to hide.) This may be snotty post, but it isn't an ambush.]

Here are some examples with links to the relevant platform provision (and I know this is long, but I wouldn't want to be accused of picking just one or two aberrations):

1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

The party platform is really messed up I'll admit. Many of my libertarian friends are moderate on many of those issues, and most of us are *against* child porn....

The only thing I really agree on that list there is isolationism, b/c I'm just sick of interventionism, whether justified by the left *or* right

Personally I am disappointed with the LP, I mean Badnarik? What the hell.

Anarchists in business suits.

Thats the libertarian party.

Remember, all libertarians believe in both economic and personal freedom + minimizing the power of the state; but you must understand that libertarians come in all different flavors/variations.

I do agree that the LP isn't so much libertarian as it is anarcho-capitalist

Wow, that's awesome, I've never seen most of that. *shakes head*

I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I definitely lean that way, so I will try to discuss. These mainly represent my views and may not be completely in line with the LP.


1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

I believe the FDA will still exist, they just will not be able to decide what drugs you can and cannot use. It is assumed that the person should be able to choose the best way in which to medicate him or herself, with the advice of a doctor of course.

Child pornography does not fall under the scope of victimless crime. It is also assumed that the child cannot truly consent to being the subject of pornography and therefore would be taken advantage of.

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

I am not sure I completely agree with this part of the Libertarian agenda, especially considering that mentally ill people can be a definite danger to society and should be kept under tabs. I do have to say that they are consistent in making people accept responsibility for their actions.

3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

This is just basic privacy protection. I am not sure that their agenda is entirely plausible and probably will horribly hinder the judicial system. But if one of the true libertarians would explain away my worries I would support this fully, as I am all for privacy rights.

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

I think you are misunderstanding this. I read it as recommending the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. Not repealing it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders.

I see no problem with this. It just states that we cannot discriminate based on nationality or ethnicity.

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

I would need a much better explanation of this to discuss it either way.

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

While it may seem difficult to grasp, this would not be too difficult of a policy to implement or maintain. It would be interesting to see how our economy and society would adjust to privatized money.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

I don't see any problem with this. If the government and the people were able to simply go through the judicial system to recover damages from pollution, there would be much fewer loop holes for polluters to go through.

9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

See my last statement and change "pollution" to "fraud" and change "polluters" to "CEOs".

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

If this is referring to legalizing child prostitution and abolishing statutory rape, I would have to be opposed to it.

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

If a child needs to work to support its family let it.

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

I would personally very much like to see this happen. We presently go crazy when another nation that isn't our ally spreads its military influence or adds weopons of mass destruction, so why should we not hold ourselves to the same standard?

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

This is far from complete isolationism. In fact the placing of troops on foreign soil and the intervention and manipulation of foreign economies by the US does more to disenfrancise the world and isolate us more.

I can dig some of that, specifically numbers 6, 12 and 13. But I generally don't associate myself with a political party. Lets me get away with not supporting the entire doctrine of a party if I think some of it is dumb, a la this little list.

Interesting, though.

I can dig some of that, specifically numbers 6, 12 and 13. But I generally don't associate myself with a political party. Lets me get away with not supporting the entire doctrine of a party if I think some of it is dumb, a la this little list.

Interesting, though.

Wow, that's awesome, I've never seen most of that. *shakes head*

For good or bad, there is much more of the same vein. I may have to do another thread later.

Big "L" libertarians (The Party) tend to be so hard-core that they represent only the most Extreme end of the spectrum. They're basically Anarchists.
This is different from those who might hold libertarian ideals-which generally can be defined as a desire to actually enforce the Bill of Rights and Limit Government to purely essential functions. Effectively, what you end up with, is a large pool of people who wind up using the Libertarian party as a threat to keep the dominant parties in-line. This is one of the main reasons nobody takes the Big "L" libertarians seriously in the normal course of affairs.

Slade Gorton lost to Maria Cantwell in 1998, because the small-"L" libertarians flocked the hell away from the Republicans in Washington state in droves, leaving ol' Slade with only the hard-core big "R" Republicans (which are severely outnumbered here.)

I'll tackle these one at a time. I don't agree with all of them, and when I don't agree, I'll admit it. Some of these are pretty ludicrous. It's a case of best-fit, though. I find the official Republican and Democratic stances on many issues to be just as laughable.

This is really, really long. Forgive me.


1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material


Drug prohibition hasn't stopped or even slowed drug use, but it has made drugs insanely expensive. By the way, as demonstrative of how failed it is, marijuana is big-business and a rather potent US export. That's such a big problem that the WTO has begun claiming we're overly favoring our own growers with our laws...

On the removal of the FDA: I support privatizing that branch of government. It's not something I think strongly of. The point of privatization is that the government has immunity to charges of negligence or corruption, while a company would not. That would give the company greater incentive to be honest. However, since I don't trust corporations completely, this is NOT an issue I'd argue strongly.

As for regulating porn, well, to be frank I didn't know about this one. However, as long as you are very strict about enforcing force and fraud laws, there should be no danger. The idea is, if these people are freely choosing to do these things and not being forced, why should we stop them? They choose to do it, so let them do it.

As for child porn, I think it would be fair to claim undue influence by the parent. As such, it should not be legalized.

[/QUOTE]

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.


I agree with this one. People shouldn't be forced into treatment if the government decides they aren't normal. As for the insanity defense, well. If you've got a problem that makes you hurt or kill people, then I've got a problem that makes me imprison you for it.


3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.


Privacy laws. THIS is a hardline point for me. I HATE the idea of my privacy being invaded. I'll hedge on the destruction of the warrant-search. It should be very difficult to obtain, but if there truly is reason to suspect someone, search them.

On surveillance of a property: Police stake-outs aren't as immoral as most forms of surveillance, so I don't think they should be banned. They're minimally invasive, short-term, and only committed when great suspicion is present anyways. I won't support unrequested security cameras, though, since they are always-on and if you watch someone close enough, long enough, you'll probably nail them for littering or something equally inane. I especially can't support monitoring someone's computer. If I don't like the government and say so in an email, I don't want to have black suits knocking on my door and wanting to "talk" to me.

On granting permission for doctor, lawer, and financial records to become publicized, I agree with that. Those are all sensitive information that I do not want people I don't know fingering through.

I want to remind everyone of something. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have a skeleton in their closet somewhere. If you give the government unilateral freedom to watch you whenever, eventually, they'll find that skeleton. I hope you have good friends and haven't offended anyone powerful/rich recently.


4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.


The url linked to and the issue mentioned don't seem related. Forgive me if I'm wrong. In any case, I don't understand what it means by a uniform code of military justice. Would it be too much to request someone explain this to me?


5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders


Aye! The right to move about freely is vital! This has been proven to increase jobs, and it will get rid of a number of costs - namely, the pitifully inefficient border patrols that don't really succeed well anyways. Have you seen illegal immigration numbers? It will also, hopefully, lead to a certain amount of cultural integration and take apart the jingoism that motivates so many people and places. We're all citizens of the world, now let's stop wasting resources on segregating our piece of the rock.

By the way. Would you like to get snared in horrible red tape when you wanted to leave the country, and never be recognized official in the country you go to? These people are considered non-entities by the government. How very compassionate!

As for terrorists, I seriously doubt they get stopped at the Mexican border. For one thing, they can go through the laxer Canadian border, or land on some unoccupied, unguarded strip of land along either coast. Freeing the borders won't affect terrorism.


6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

Huh? I'm going to do some research on that. It sounds absurd. However, at first glance it doesn't appear to refer to giving them the entire nation, only their reservations - which will lose any special recognition as a side effect, becoming just so much land.


7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.


This clause can go to <censored>. Legal tender is vital. It ensures ease-of-trade across the entire country. If I had my way, there'd be one currency across the whole planet, with a value that never changed.

The one thing I'll note is that, at present, the government is indeed mismanaging our currency. Borrowing is through the roof. Not all of it is deficit-funding. Some of it is intentional devaluation. That just weakens our economy and sets us up for a looming catastrophe...


8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.


Ah... I fail to see your problem with this. I can defend it better when I know what you're objecting to in more detail.

For right now, I'll go straight for the government-mandate on smoking and non-smoking areas. That should indeed be up to the corporation. If a company is predominantly non-smokers, the smokers can light up outside. If it's predominantly smokers, the non-smokers can take breaks outside. If it's a mix (as it would generally be), then it's in the company's interest to make sure there's specific areas set aside. As I've said in the past, happy workers are productive workers.

Oh, that and this thing. "We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation." By good, truly honest law they should be REQUIRED to prove it was caused by radiation! Otherwise frivolous claims of radiation mutations could be ridiculously expensive and time-consuming. I can see it now. "I gained weight, it must be because radiation from that company mutated my genes to encourage weight gain!" Isn't that more or less what's happening now? >.<

Lastly, one can't support demolishing the EPA entirely. If nothing else, someone needs to watch and enforce companies who break the law. As it said, they should be required to repair the damage done. That said, the EPA should not be a unilateral organization, capable of slapping sanctions wherever. Someone needs to complain first. The complaint demonstrates that someone was truly being harmed by the problem in question, instead of letting the government decide whenever they like to punish someone.

One question all this leaves me with, though. There are examples of bad stewardship by the government, in the past, so who pays for those? I'm afraid someone else will have to answer.


9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.


Hadn't heard this one before. Personally, I think it would be fine but major reforms in tort law must go through long before that above is allowed, or all that will happen is lawyers get rich while the rest of the country goes broke.


10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.


Again, parental influence negates the child prostitution part rather effectively. The rest of it seems fine. No, I don't support child prostitution. I think the government should back out of anyone else being a prostitute, though.


11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.


Relax child labor laws, but NOT compulsory education laws. Our educational system needs an overhaul. The children are the future, and education is IMO the cornerstone of a successful capitalist society. Everyone needs to have the education needed to adapt to changing market conditions. If there are too many mechanics, some of them need to know how to handle other careers and thus switch to something where labor prices are more feasible. Without proper education, all that exists is wage slavery.


12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.


Strip back overseas troop deployment and do not send more except in crisis situations within allied nations. However, do not disarm. Yes, I'll support the ideal of more strictly targetted weapons. I will not support the ideal of removing what we already have. Military research and production is too expensive to allow the scrapping of good armaments if they're not obsolete.


13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

End diplomatic, economic, and militaristic meddling, I agree in all but the most vital cases. By vital cases, I mean I support humanitarian intervention. I believe that should be handled at the UN's discretion rather than the US' decision, supplemented by but not replaced by US troops.



I'm probably a "lower case" libertarian, since I don't agree with my party on a number of issues. Still, these are my positions on these matters. Where possible I defended the positions quoted, where I disagreed I voiced my disagreement, and where I didn't agree I said that too.

I believe the FDA will still exist, they just will not be able to decide what drugs you can and cannot use. It is assumed that the person should be able to choose the best way in which to medicate him or herself, with the advice of a doctor of course.

So, if a company makes Strychnine and claims that it cures the common cold, they should be able to sell it as such and a person should be able to take it?

I don't think most people realize what it was like before the FDA, when companies were allowed to claim that they were selling the wonder-drug which would (and I've actually seen an old advertisement for this) Dye your hair, clean your floors, disinfect a cut, and cure the common cold.

The FDA does not "decide what drugs you can and cannot use", it simply ensures that a company marketing a drug is marketing a safe, effective drug and telling you *exactly* what it does.

This is just basic privacy protection. I am not sure that their agenda is entirely plausible and probably will horribly hinder the judicial system. But if one of the true libertarians would explain away my worries I would support this fully, as I am all for privacy rights.

Hinder? It would do away with the judicial system altogether. You couldn't prove anything because the person who committed the crime would just say they didn't want it looked at.

I see no problem with this. It just states that we cannot discriminate based on nationality or ethnicity.

In other words, there are no citizens of this country.

While it may seem difficult to grasp, this would not be too difficult of a policy to implement or maintain. It would be interesting to see how our economy and society would adjust to privatized money.

Standardization can be *very* valuable.

I don't see any problem with this. If the government and the people were able to simply go through the judicial system to recover damages from pollution, there would be much fewer loop holes for polluters to go through.

(a) You assume that people would all sue.
(b) You assume that we can directly link one person's air/property damage to a single company.
(c) You forget that getting something through the judicial system already takes years (and would take even longer with all the new cases this would introduce), giving the company years and years before any suit goes through. Even then, it may be cheaper for them to pay the fine than stop polluting. Would you like to destroy the world?

If a child needs to work to support its family let it.

That isn't *all* the child labor laws do. In fact, a child already can work if its family needs it, so long as the child has parental consent.

Now you know why I laugh at libertarianism. :)

I'm not sure if thishas been mentioned yet, but there is a difference in being Libritarian in political belief and belonging to the Libritarian party.

In other words, there are no citizens of this country.

I'd say... no.


Standardization can be *very* valuable.

Aye.


That isn't *all* the child labor laws do. In fact, a child already can work if its family needs it, so long as the child has parental consent.
No, that isn't true. I could have parental consent up the yay-hoo and never be allowed to work a single hour. I should know. I'm 15. I have to have permission from my parents, my school board, my principal, at least one teacher, and then I can only work very few hours and very few places. If I were 14 it would be even harder. If 13, impossible.

I only disagreed with about three of those platforms. (Morality: it aint just for show..)

Not suprising, on the political compass i WAS considerd a conservative liberatarian. Talk about a scientific paradox. :p

1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

To address your questions point by point if I may:

--No FDA: Not as crazy as it sounds. Many of the agricultural problems we face in America are due to government involvement: in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8538023&postcount=84 I explain a bit of this. The things the FDA does would be more effective if we told the private sector to conduct this business themselves. The obvious counterargument, of course, is probably something along the lines of "Well why would we trust the companies to do that?"

To which I answer: Why do we trust the government to do it now? If they do a bad job, no one can punish them. They're the government. The only recourse we have if the FDA screws up is to make the supreme court review some shit or whatever and fire a few people. Recourse against private corporations for their own incompetence is much easier for the public to exact than it is with the federal government.

--No regulation of medicine: Not sure where this came form, I can't find it in the platform. I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I don't know exactly what the government does regarding medicine anyway. I'm OK with it so long as all they're doing is making sure they contain the things they're supposed to contain, I guess.

--Legalize child porn: What? Where did you read that? The Libertarian stance on Sexual rights reads: 'Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.' Note the first word.

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

This is something I really don't think about that much, it doesn't strike me as a particularly important issue in most cases. As a general rule, though, I can't say I like the idea of the government telling $CITIZEN that he has to take $PILL or go to an institution. Basically what it comes down to here is under what circumstances is it right for the government to tell us what's right for ourselves. Different people will tell you different things. If our current voting bloc is any indication, we love a nanny.

3. No searches ? even with warrants ? without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.


Read the whole thing: We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties.

The portion you quoted applies to people that the government thinks may commit a crime in the future, either on the basis of their character traits or their past history, or what have you. Your opinion on this issue may change should the government get a wild hair up its ass and decide you might be a terrorist. The quote you posted above wouldn't protect criminals.

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

Not sure what the Uniform Code of Military Justice is, but the rest of the platform that you didnt quote here seems pretty reasonable to me.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever ? terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders

This is the part where I tell you that political parties promote mediocraty, and that I only call myself a Libertarian because they come closest to what I agree with on 90% of the issues. I'm a Libertarian, but I'm not sure I agree with this, it seems like a pretty unrealistic premise to me

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

Find me the words "Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians" in their platforms and I'll eat my shirt. Saying that they "should have their property rights restored" probably doesn't mean "cede control of the US to the Indians."

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

Free market banking. This just depends on how capitalist you are. Some people will tell you that it would work, many will tell you it wouldn't. I won't pretend to guess whether it would or not. I'd never thought of this until I read it here.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

What wrong with suggesting that people be held accountable for their own actions? If Union Carbide fucks their shit up and spills all sorts of nasty chemicals all over the place, why should I have to pay for it? Take the money out of their own pockets, they were the cause of the problem: not society, not me. The idea that pollution and environmental damage should be computed in regards to the damage they cause seems pretty reasonable to me.


9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

Sigh. You must think it's reasonable for a woman to sue McDonald's because she didn't know coffee was hot. This is the kind of thing they're trying to curtail here, not reasonable claims. This is a stopgap measure proposed by the Libertarian Party to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits that are going on in this country. A lot of products now have hidden costs and are thus more expensive due to an isolated dumbass or two who decided that he could trim his bushes with his lawnmower or what have you. Furthermore, your above quote seems to ignore most of the actual platform, which mostly talks about monopoly laws and such.

In reality, a Libertarian platform would make it much harder for $CITIZEN to sue $CORPORATION for their own negligence or stupidity. If the fault is with the company, however, I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable. Apparently a lot of people like to think we would just let them keep ripping people off.

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

I think you might be reading this wrong. They also may have worded it incorrectly. The way I see it, "information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies" is a seperate clause.

Even if that wasn't the case, it says "Voluntary exchange of goods..." How many child prostitutes are child prostitutes because they want to be?

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

This isn't the 1920s. Most of our corporate labor centers are overseas anyway, so in a practical sense repealing child labor laws wont in most cases mean we'll have hundreds of 6 year olds toiling for 14 hours on end in a factory. In reality, they'd probably be broomboys at a barbershop or paperboys or what have you. With minimum wage being what it is, most employers aren't going to hire a kid for anything above a menial level anyway.

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

I agree with this one. One of the main problems with our Foreign Policy/Defense situation in this country is that our army is an extrordinarily effective offensive weapon, but is piss poor at defense. Remeber after 9/11 how we fell all over ourselves guarding everything and trying to figure out who did it? Did anyone actually feel any safer?

Our armed forces have a habit of killing lots of people in other countries. This makes the sons of those people very angry, and they start things like terrorist movements and so forth. Why the fuck do we need troops in Europe? Are the Germans about to go off again? Japan? Central America? What the hell?

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

Damn straight. Every bit as much as I don't want to hear some European or $FOREIGNER telling me what to do, I also wouldn't feel right telling them what to do. As for foreign aid, why the hell do we feel compelled to pay for the shortcomings of others? Sure there is suffering in the world: there always will be. That money, however, would be better spent developing agricultural science to the point where we can help them once or twice and be done with it: be it though better farming techniques, GE crops, or what-have you. Dropping food from planes only feeds people for a few weeks.

I agree with this one. People shouldn't be forced into treatment if the government decides they aren't normal. As for the insanity defense, well. If you've got a problem that makes you hurt or kill people, then I've got a problem that makes me imprison you for it.

So they have to actually hurt or kill someone before we put them in treatment? Someone has to die first?

On granting permission for doctor, lawer, and financial records to become publicized, I agree with that. Those are all sensitive information that I do not want people I don't know fingering through.

It didn't say anything about them being *publicized*. It said that the government should never, ever have access to them without your permission. That opens up all sorts of problems. Suppose a person is involved in a shoot-out with cops and runs away. They go and get treatment for a gunshot wound. Later, when they are caught and being tried, they can say "I was never treated for any gunshot wound and you can't prove I did because I'm not going to let you see my medical records ever!!!!"

For right now, I'll go straight for the government-mandate on smoking and non-smoking areas. That should indeed be up to the corporation. If a company is predominantly non-smokers, the smokers can light up outside. If it's predominantly smokers, the non-smokers can take breaks outside. If it's a mix (as it would generally be), then it's in the company's interest to make sure there's specific areas set aside. As I've said in the past, happy workers are productive workers.

Can't argue this.

Lastly, one can't support demolishing the EPA entirely. If nothing else, someone needs to watch and enforce companies who break the law.

Funny that you say this about the EPA and not the FDA.

As it said, they should be required to repair the damage done. That said, the EPA should not be a unilateral organization, capable of slapping sanctions wherever. Someone needs to complain first. The complaint demonstrates that someone was truly being harmed by the problem in question, instead of letting the government decide whenever they like to punish someone.

So general damage done to nature doesn't matter? A specific person has to be harmed? It's ok to, for instance, drive a species into extinction so long as no human being can prove they were harmed?

Sigh. You must think it's reasonable for a woman to sue McDonald's because she didn't know coffee was hot.

You know, you were making a decent point about actual frivolous lawsuits, and then you decided to talk out of your ass.

There is a difference between hot coffee and coffee so hot it causes third degree burns.

It didn't say anything about them being *publicized*. It said that the government should never, ever have access to them without your permission. That opens up all sorts of problems. Suppose a person is involved in a shoot-out with cops and runs away. They go and get treatment for a gunshot wound. Later, when they are caught and being tried, they can say "I was never treated for any gunshot wound and you can't prove I did because I'm not going to let you see my medical records ever!!!!"

It didnt say "the government should never, ever have access to them without your permission." If you get arrested, they can have it. What hte Libertarians are against is the government's ability to peruse this info at their leisure.

EDIT: Dempublicents1, I worked in fast food for about a year, and I'm here to tell you no one ever checks the temperature of the coffee. Third degree burns would suck ass, but even then it wouldn't be right to extract from the company anything exceeding your medical costs. The idea of "mental anguish" or any other intangible being a valid argument for more cash is absurd.

No, that isn't true. I could have parental consent up the yay-hoo and never be allowed to work a single hour. I should know. I'm 15. I have to have permission from my parents, my school board, my principal, at least one teacher, and then I can only work very few hours and very few places. If I were 14 it would be even harder. If 13, impossible.

That is a function of exactly where you live - state and local laws. Not all places require so many people.

It didnt say "the government should never, ever have access to them without your permission." If you get arrested, they can have it. What hte Libertarians are against is the government's ability to peruse this info at their leisure.

And if they can't arrest you without the information?

And if they can't arrest you without the information?

Then they can't arrest you. Obviously.

That is a function of exactly where you live - state and local laws. Not all places require so many people.

Incorrect. Child Labor Laws are Federal Laws.

Incorrect. Child Labor Laws are Federal Laws.

Some are, some are not. There are many things that are regulated at all levels of government. The federal law puts X restriction on, but the state and local governments are allowed to add to it.

Most of the guidelines concerning where minors can and can't work are federal laws. I've only been behind the counter in Ohio, so I'm not certain what rules other states may have posted. I just know most of those big posters with the core points say "Federal" somewhere on them.

So they have to actually hurt or kill someone before we put them in treatment? Someone has to die first?

The idea is, the government can't decide someone is abnormal and therefore lock them up.


It didn't say anything about them being *publicized*. It said that the government should never, ever have access to them without your permission. That opens up all sorts of problems. Suppose a person is involved in a shoot-out with cops and runs away. They go and get treatment for a gunshot wound. Later, when they are caught and being tried, they can say "I was never treated for any gunshot wound and you can't prove I did because I'm not going to let you see my medical records ever!!!!"

Melkor countered this better than I could.


Funny that you say this about the EPA and not the FDA.

I didn't say the FDA should be demolished either. I just read a convincing account of why it should be privatized once. Besides, the EPA would be reduced to advisory role - the FDA after I got through with it would be more powerful.


So general damage done to nature doesn't matter? A specific person has to be harmed? It's ok to, for instance, drive a species into extinction so long as no human being can prove they were harmed?
You're misreading me. If a bunch of people sue because you're destroying <insert-animal-here>'s habitat, then that company has to deal with a bunch of people suing. Even if they're not successful, it's still very disruptive/expensive for the business. I never said that a suit couldn't be over moral grounds.

Someone else give me something more on that last bit. I don't really know how to handle companies driving animals into extinction. I'm not omniscient, nor perfectly trusting in companies, so what exactly would stop them?

Some are, some are not. There are many things that are regulated at all levels of government. The federal law puts X restriction on, but the state and local governments are allowed to add to it.
Our school office has a very large poster explaining employment laws. The sections that refer to children and teenagers all list themselves as federal laws.

EDIT: Dempublicents1, I worked in fast food for about a year, and I'm here to tell you no one ever checks the temperature of the coffee. Third degree burns would suck ass, but even then it wouldn't be right to extract from the company anything exceeding your medical costs. The idea of "mental anguish" or any other intangible being a valid argument for more cash is absurd.

Checking the records would show that McDonald's was *intentionally* keeping their coffee hotter than other restaraunts. They had already had over 700 complaints on it and had done nothing. McDonald's also lied during the trial, stating that they believed most of their customers didn't touch the coffee until about 30 minutes after buying it, when they got where they were going. Meanwhile, as came out during the trial, McDonald's own market research showed that most people want to drink it in the car right away. In other words, McDonald's was *intentionally* putting their customers in harm's way.

Checking the records would show that McDonald's was *intentionally* keeping their coffee hotter than other restaraunts. They had already had over 700 complaints on it and had done nothing. McDonald's also lied during the trial, stating that they believed most of their customers didn't touch the coffee until about 30 minutes after buying it, when they got where they were going. Meanwhile, as came out during the trial, McDonald's own market research showed that most people want to drink it in the car right away. In other words, McDonald's was *intentionally* putting their customers in harm's way.
Then charge McDonald's for medical costs. That is exactly the amount of damage they caused and should have offered reparations for. NOT an abitrarily high number for "mental damages".

The idea is, the government can't decide someone is abnormal and therefore lock them up.

In other words, someone can be a danger to the populace due to a mental condition, but we can't put them into treatment until they actually kill someone.

You're misreading me. If a bunch of people sue because you're destroying <insert-animal-here>'s habitat, then that company has to deal with a bunch of people suing. Even if they're not successful, it's still very disruptive/expensive for the business. I never said that a suit couldn't be over moral grounds.

I hate to break it to you, but in order to sue someone (at least criminally), you have to show harm done to a person. You may think that a suit can be over moral grounds, but that isn't how the law works.

In other words, someone can be a danger to the populace due to a mental condition, but we can't put them into treatment until they actually kill someone.

That's exactly right. You can't lock someone away on suspicion that they'll kill someone, can you? It's not the government's job to be locking people up because of what a beaurocrat decides that person might do.


I hate to break it to you, but in order to sue someone (at least criminally), you have to show harm done to a person. You may think that a suit can be over moral grounds, but that isn't how the law works.
Thanks. That moral grounds thing sounded horrible the moment I said it - I knew it was wrong, but couldn't prove myself wrong. Like I said, I'd like to hear an alternative. Private stewardship of land is something I believe in abstractly, but some businesses have no economic incentive to be sustainable in that manner. Logging businesses have a good reason to preserve the forest, but a factory has no incentive to keep a river clean besides Public Relations. How do we save the river without having the entire country pay for it?

In other words, someone can be a danger to the populace due to a mental condition, but we can't put them into treatment until they actually kill someone.

Not sure what Shrin Kali has to say about this, but my larger concern lies with the government's ability to actually determine the real threats. They don't really have to answer anyone, and the system is too open for corruption and incompetence. Who says the people making these decisions are properly qualified? How easy is it for a perfectly sane person to fall through the cracks because he has some things to say that they don't like?

You never know what rights you have until they're taken away. Legislation like this paves the way for greater injustices down the road.

That brings up another point. How do you ensure government accountibility? Too many government organizations have become entirely undemocratic. The Constitution is being spat on by government programs, more and more often.

Exactly. What happens when the twin towers get attacked? We create another intelligence agency. Who says that's gonna do anything?

People get pissed that other farmers can grow lots of crops too and what do we do? Make another agency for it. Someone invents the satellite with a camera in it? Make an agency. Discovered radio waves? Make an agency.

Annnnd so on.

I said I would not debate the merits of the LP platform (beyond my original editorial headings) and I will not. I also disagree with the way some of the platform has been spun, but will not respond unless invited.

I do have one point to make, however, and a follow-up question/comment.

I think you have read this portion backwards:



http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

Sigh. You must think it's reasonable for a woman to sue McDonald's because she didn't know coffee was hot. This is the kind of thing they're trying to curtail here, not reasonable claims. This is a stopgap measure proposed by the Libertarian Party to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits that are going on in this country. A lot of products now have hidden costs and are thus more expensive due to an isolated dumbass or two who decided that he could trim his bushes with his lawnmower or what have you. Furthermore, your above quote seems to ignore most of the actual platform, which mostly talks about monopoly laws and such.

In reality, a Libertarian platform would make it much harder for $CITIZEN to sue $CORPORATION for their own negligence or stupidity. If the fault is with the company, however, I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable. Apparently a lot of people like to think we would just let them keep ripping people off.

I find nothing in the platform overall about tort reform. To the contrary, the quoted portion says the LP "would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions." Rather than capping damages, this eliminates caps on damages.

This leads to my question/comment. I've noticed a great hostility towards lawyers among Libertarians on these Forums. But the LP platform entrusts a great deal to litigation. For example, liability for medicine and environmental pollution.

It seems to me the LP platform largely replaces Executive branch regulation with Judicial branch regulation in these areas.

Yeah seems like you're right, I might have just read that wrong. Not sure why they'd want to do that: maybe so things can be judged on a more case by case basis? Certain limits might not be appropriate in all cases, perhaps.

To address your questions point by point if I may:

--No FDA: Not as crazy as it sounds. Many of the agricultural problems we face in America are due to government involvement: in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8538023&postcount=84 I explain a bit of this. The things the FDA does would be more effective if we told the private sector to conduct this business themselves. The obvious counterargument, of course, is probably something along the lines of "Well why would we trust the companies to do that?"

To which I answer: Why do we trust the government to do it now? If they do a bad job, no one can punish them. They're the government. The only recourse we have if the FDA screws up is to make the supreme court review some shit or whatever and fire a few people. Recourse against private corporations for their own incompetence is much easier for the public to exact than it is with the federal government.

--No regulation of medicine: Not sure where this came form, I can't find it in the platform. I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I don't know exactly what the government does regarding medicine anyway. I'm OK with it so long as all they're doing is making sure they contain the things they're supposed to contain, I guess.

--Legalize child porn: What? Where did you read that? The Libertarian stance on Sexual rights reads: 'Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.' Note the first word.



This is something I really don't think about that much, it doesn't strike me as a particularly important issue in most cases. As a general rule, though, I can't say I like the idea of the government telling $CITIZEN that he has to take $PILL or go to an institution. Basically what it comes down to here is under what circumstances is it right for the government to tell us what's right for ourselves. Different people will tell you different things. If our current voting bloc is any indication, we love a nanny.



Read the whole thing:

The portion you quoted applies to people that the government thinks may commit a crime in the future, either on the basis of their character traits or their past history, or what have you. Your opinion on this issue may change should the government get a wild hair up its ass and decide you might be a terrorist. The quote you posted above wouldn't protect criminals.



Not sure what the Uniform Code of Military Justice is, but the rest of the platform that you didnt quote here seems pretty reasonable to me.



This is the part where I tell you that political parties promote mediocraty, and that I only call myself a Libertarian because they come closest to what I agree with on 90% of the issues. I'm a Libertarian, but I'm not sure I agree with this, it seems like a pretty unrealistic premise to me



Find me the words "Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians" in their platforms and I'll eat my shirt. Saying that they "should have their property rights restored" probably doesn't mean "cede control of the US to the Indians."



Free market banking. This just depends on how capitalist you are. Some people will tell you that it would work, many will tell you it wouldn't. I won't pretend to guess whether it would or not. I'd never thought of this until I read it here.



What wrong with suggesting that people be held accountable for their own actions? If Union Carbide fucks their shit up and spills all sorts of nasty chemicals all over the place, why should I have to pay for it? Take the money out of their own pockets, they were the cause of the problem: not society, not me. The idea that pollution and environmental damage should be computed in regards to the damage they cause seems pretty reasonable to me.



Sigh. You must think it's reasonable for a woman to sue McDonald's because she didn't know coffee was hot. This is the kind of thing they're trying to curtail here, not reasonable claims. This is a stopgap measure proposed by the Libertarian Party to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits that are going on in this country. A lot of products now have hidden costs and are thus more expensive due to an isolated dumbass or two who decided that he could trim his bushes with his lawnmower or what have you. Furthermore, your above quote seems to ignore most of the actual platform, which mostly talks about monopoly laws and such.

In reality, a Libertarian platform would make it much harder for $CITIZEN to sue $CORPORATION for their own negligence or stupidity. If the fault is with the company, however, I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable. Apparently a lot of people like to think we would just let them keep ripping people off.



I think you might be reading this wrong. They also may have worded it incorrectly. The way I see it, "information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies" is a seperate clause.

Even if that wasn't the case, it says "Voluntary exchange of goods..." How many child prostitutes are child prostitutes because they want to be?



This isn't the 1920s. Most of our corporate labor centers are overseas anyway, so in a practical sense repealing child labor laws wont in most cases mean we'll have hundreds of 6 year olds toiling for 14 hours on end in a factory. In reality, they'd probably be broomboys at a barbershop or paperboys or what have you. With minimum wage being what it is, most employers aren't going to hire a kid for anything above a menial level anyway.



I agree with this one. One of the main problems with our Foreign Policy/Defense situation in this country is that our army is an extrordinarily effective offensive weapon, but is piss poor at defense. Remeber after 9/11 how we fell all over ourselves guarding everything and trying to figure out who did it? Did anyone actually feel any safer?

Our armed forces have a habit of killing lots of people in other countries. This makes the sons of those people very angry, and they start things like terrorist movements and so forth. Why the fuck do we need troops in Europe? Are the Germans about to go off again? Japan? Central America? What the hell?



Damn straight. Every bit as much as I don't want to hear some European or $FOREIGNER telling me what to do, I also wouldn't feel right telling them what to do. As for foreign aid, why the hell do we feel compelled to pay for the shortcomings of others? Sure there is suffering in the world: there always will be. That money, however, would be better spent developing agricultural science to the point where we can help them once or twice and be done with it: be it though better farming techniques, GE crops, or what-have you. Dropping food from planes only feeds people for a few weeks.
Thanks for saving me a lot of typing in someone's thread I wouldn't all of that time on.

[I've tried to swear of the forums since Jolt, and the General forum for over a year, but I can't resist taking this up].

I think that you need to keep in mind that there is a tremendous difference between "Libertarian" and "libertarian." While you recognize that there is a difference, it might help if you thought about the difference between "democrat" and "Democrat" and "republican" vs "Republican."

The capital letter indicates a party, which has to chose a platform. The Democratic and Republican Parties do so by finding an acceptable compromise among the constituent bases that is aimed towards winning votes. The Libertarian Party does so by chosing the most radically anti-government position possible on any issue, and using it as an official stance, then allowing individual candidates to compromize and place emphasis on certain issues as they view necessary.

The lowercase letter, on the other hand, indicates a much different, and in the case of "libertarian," a much broader definition.

I would call myself a "libertarian" (i.e. I believe that government exists strictly to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens); a "democrat" (I believe the the will of the people should be the basis of government, and that government goverms with the consent of the governed (I believe in recall and inititive); and a "republican" (i.e. I believe that the will of the majority should not enable restictions to be placed on the minority (think prohibition, the drug war, several states' bans on certain animals {e.g. Quaker parakeets} recreational items items {e.g. fireworks} and trade items {e.g. fruit, wine}, and the recent amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman as a few of the far too numerous examples). Yet I would certainly not call myself a Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican. I never intend to permenately join any party. I'm an independent and proud of it.

I would also argue that the Democratic and Republican Parties have anti-democratic tendencies and anti-republican tendencies. I won't say respective tendencies either. I'll say that both run towards corruption and authoritarianism, while the intentions of individuals may be good, and more importantly, both are overly obsessed with party solidarity.

I will say outright that I think that most people probably find the Libertarian Party flat-out insane. I've met a number of captial-L Libertarians, includng my cousin, and their beliefs vary from more or less the same as mine, to my cousin's, and even she does not support all of their proposed measures. The key thing is that the LP tries to produce a comprimise by absolutism, since different people who might otherwise call themselves Libertarian or libertarian would disagree on what takes it too far.

While I would disagree wth many of those points myself, I'd say that some of them are on the right track, and others you misinterpret. As I read #6, for instance, as at least one other has mentioned, it seems to only refer to the reservations, which believe it or not, we still do not give them full control over.

While, as I said, I would consider myself libertarian (and I call myself "libertarian with a lowercase 'l'" for lack of a better word), I would rarely vote for a Libertarian candidate, onless their tack changes drasitically. (Badnarik is downright sane compared with the candidates they tried to run for governer and sentator in my state) My main bones of contention with the LP are several fold.

1. They put the individual on equal footing with collectives. Or rather, one type of collective the corporation. I do not believe that the supposed rights of such collectives, should trump those of individuals. Libertarians seem to follow the governmental interpretation that corporations are people. It's a slippery slope from there? Why not then consider any organization a person? Why not call the US government a person? We already depict it that way.

2. They try too hard to find consistency, to the point of inconsistency. "Your freedom ends where my nose begins," goes the old addage. While I favor repealing lawas against victimless crimes (drug use, fireworks, and although I find it incredibly distasteful personally, adult prostitution), I do not favor the amount of deregulation that the LP proposes. As the only US president to rise to ascendency from my birthplace once said, "Men do not make laws. They do but discover them." In short, we need some sort of social contract, some place to draw the line.

3. As part of the above, they propose some things which to me, just do not make sense. They favor the complete abolition of education, thereby putting and end to their supposed belief in equality of opportunity (which is a sounder method than equality of results). They also call for the abolition not only of a graduated income tax, but of income tax period, calling instead for a consumption tax. If there was ever a more idiotic idea to impede economic growth, this is it.

4. And this brings me to my next point, prioritites. While the LP claims to treat social and economic issues equally, its candidates, at least in Massachiusetts, resort to demonoguery in the economic field. Carla Howell for instance tried to run for governor on the coattails of her initiative to abolish the state income tax. The LP believes that you destroy the ecnomic power of government, and everything else will follow. I belive that such an attack would lead to petty tyrannies of whomever could take and hold power. Fortunately such would be almost impossible to accomplish. I believe the reform must come through political issues (IRV, direct election of the president, recall and initititive, and some more democratic way of appointing cabinet members{now too often a matter of patronage more than competance}). I believe that to accomplish this, and to get an amendment or bill reaffirming beyond a doubt amendments 2-10 would be the key to all else.

That in this way, we could truly have a democratic republic, concieved in liberty, as opposed to the burecratic morass our government has been for most of the 20th century.

This explain anything?

Peace, Truth, Liberty, and Justice,
Luke

PS: Sheesh, took me an hour to write this?

I'm not going to argue those points for or against, but here is my view: many of those are more extreme than I would advocate, but I agree in principle with almost all of them and would wholeheartedly support a toned-back version.

Here are some examples with links to the relevant platform provision (and I know this is long, but I wouldn't want to be accused of picking just one or two aberrations):

K, I know you and I don't tend to get along so well, but I'll try and answer these as calmly as I can xD

1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

Bear in mind that the Libertarian standpoint is of personal responsibility; the question comes in, at what age does a child have the ability not only to say 'ok' but to fully understand the implications of that?

As for the FDA - good. Drugs harm only the user, and pleading you were under the influence whilst you commited a crime would plainly not work in a Liberatarian legal system. Medicine should not be regulated either; this does not mean that false advertising will be permitted.

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

Absolutely! I'm sick and tired of hearing about how terrible the mentally ill are (We aren't, in general.), and the British government serious proposed locking up the mentally ill just last week. You cannot lock people up, not even for 'treatment', based on what they might or might not do. It is indefensible. And from my experience, pretty much every mentally ill person I've met who suffers from anything except anxiety/panic attacks, actually benefits from being trusted and given responsibility, whilst being treated as a dangerous pariah is rather less healthy.

3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

This has been addressed by others better than by myself. I doubt however that it would permit criminals to say "Uhhh nope, no incriminating documents for j00, pig cop losers!"

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

I would suspect this means apply the civilian laws to military personnel. I don't think it is entirely wise myself, but as the Libs wouldn't be off fighting too many wars, then it probably would be of reduced effect.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders

This was the very issue which got me into Libertarianism in the first place. I have not once seen a good case for anti-immigration laws. I have not once seen an anti-immigration law short of North Korea's which could keep out a terrorist. I assure you, they would have little trouble getting into the country as it is now; the removal of immigration laws merely means that honest citizens (Like myself) are free to move and set up an honest trade.

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

I think you are overestimating the effect of this. One of the central tenants of Libertarianism according to the LP is the ownership of private property; the only group who would lose a significant amount is the government itself. I suspect this means the reservations will be permitted to become truly sovereign nations.

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

I'll admit; I have no idea how this would work. My only supposition is that they might mean a private firm does the minting, instead of the government.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

Certainly! Can you imagine it? All you have to do is prove that harm was caused, and bam! Cleanup time. It will, essentially, be in the hands of the people who care, instead of faceless and inefficient bureaucracy.

9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

Seems fair to me. A multi-billion dollar corporation is not going to be hurt by a ten thousand dollar fine.

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

If it can be proven to be entirely voluntary, then unsavory as it may sound, there is no crime.

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

I highly doubt the American people will stand up for actual exploitation of children. I don't actually think it should be legal for children under a certain age to work - but I can see the merit of this anyway. What's wrong with a kid putting in four or five hours in a store on a Sunday to earn a few bucks?

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

I don't see the sense in nuclear disarmament - I fear that may be a little naive - but I see it being a votewinner. And yes, given the massive amounts of comlpaints about overseas US action, I think the rest of the world would benefit from seeing how important US military power is when it's gone.

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

No, complete military withdrawal. Isolationism is in no way compatable with free and open immigration, nor with free trade.

I can appreciate the points you're making; and their platform could do with being reworded in certain instances, without question, but I think you've stretched the interepretations on a couple of those. Of course, on the rest, we just plain disagree :p

K, I know you and I don't tend to get along so well, but I'll try and answer these as calmly as I can xD

*snip*

I can appreciate the points you're making; and their platform could do with being reworded in certain instances, without question, but I think you've stretched the interepretations on a couple of those. Of course, on the rest, we just plain disagree :p

Thanks for the calm response. I certainly recognize you, but don't recall specific acrimony. I'm an arrogant prick that tends to be pretty nasty sometimes, however, so it doesn't surprise me that I may have offended. :D (And we definitely disagree on a lot of things. :p )

I agree that I definitely sensationalized my headings. ;)

And I see everyone's point on #6. It depends on how you read it. (There are still a lot of people, especially in the West, that would go nuts over #6. But I would support it.)

Anyway, thanks again.

I will never, could never advocate for the abolishment of education. Education is the basis of equality of opportunity, and equality of opportunity is the basis of capitalism. It has been pointed out to me that Libertarianism is a foolish stance.
I'm thoroughly a libertarian, and note the lower case l.

So, if a company makes Strychnine and claims that it cures the common cold, they should be able to sell it as such and a person should be able to take it?Not exactly. If you take a known lethal poison and call it "cold medicine", that's a crime - at least fraud, possibly murder. If you sell a known lethal poison and call it "lethal poison", that's perfectly fine.

I'll admit; I have no idea how this would work. My only supposition is that they might mean a private firm does the minting, instead of the government.

If I am correct they want to allow for complete privatization of banking. Right now banks only are free in their acceptance of deposits, for the repayment of deposits they must turn to the Central Bank to acquire the notes to settle.

What the LP wants to do is allow the banks to choose both the deposits they accept and the currency they dispense. Whether the banks mint it themselves is up to the banks themselves.

This would take away government control over inflation and the monetary policy, and ensure that the currency is correctly valued.

Not exactly. If you take a known lethal poison and call it "cold medicine", that's a crime - at least fraud, possibly murder. If you sell a known lethal poison and call it "lethal poison", that's perfectly fine.

The main purpose of the FDA is to ensure that, when a company sells a drug, they market it as exactly what it is.

The company says, "We have a drug that can ease pain!" The FDA says, that's nice, prove it.

The company proves it through clinical trials, and also finds that the drug may sometimes cause anal leakage.

The FDA says "Ok, you will sell this as a drug that can ease pain in most people but sometimes caues anal leakage."

The company says, "Ok." and starts selling the drug.

If I am correct they want to allow for complete privatization of banking. Right now banks only are free in their acceptance of deposits, for the repayment of deposits they must turn to the Central Bank to acquire the notes to settle.

What the LP wants to do is allow the banks to choose both the deposits they accept and the currency they dispense. Whether the banks mint it themselves is up to the banks themselves.

This would take away government control over inflation and the monetary policy, and ensure that the currency is correctly valued.

Aaaaah, I see! Makes a lot more sense now.


Thanks for the calm response. I certainly recognize you, but don't recall specific acrimony. I'm an arrogant prick that tends to be pretty nasty sometimes, however, so it doesn't surprise me that I may have offended. (And we definitely disagree on a lot of things. )

I agree that I definitely sensationalized my headings.

And I see everyone's point on #6. It depends on how you read it. (There are still a lot of people, especially in the West, that would go nuts over #6. But I would support it.)

Anyway, thanks again.

Hehe, I'm not much different at times. I'm very condescending mostly... so eh, this is probably a once in a lifetime arrangement here :p

Anyways, you're welcome, and I hope one day you see the mighty justice that is the Libertarian party... xDDD

Some of those sound reasonable, like giving the Indians their land, and letting immigrants come into the country.

The best thing that Badnarik did was to oppose the Patriot Act. (in my opinion)

Just want to pop in about the FDA...

For those who don't understand how the FDA could work as a private entity, I have two words: "Underwriters' Laboratory". UL is a private, non-profit organization. People who make electrical devices don't have to send their models to UL for approval; nothing's forcing them.

Except, that is, UL's reputation. People trust the UL label. They trust it so much that many chain stores won't carry a device if it isn't UL listed. A similar setup for drug verification would work nicely.

Currently, terminal patients can't use unapproved drugs. With drugs taking upwards of 15 years to be approved, these people are doomed to dying because of the FDA. Of course using a non-approved drug is risky, but if I had 6 months to live, I'd be willing to try just about anything. If it kills me, who cares? I was dead anyway.

The FDA loves saying that some newly approved drug will save X lives a year. Never mind the fact that fifteen times that many people likely died because they couldn't use the drug.

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

I kind of like that one.

Thanks. That moral grounds thing sounded horrible the moment I said it - I knew it was wrong, but couldn't prove myself wrong. Like I said, I'd like to hear an alternative. Private stewardship of land is something I believe in abstractly, but some businesses have no economic incentive to be sustainable in that manner. Logging businesses have a good reason to preserve the forest, but a factory has no incentive to keep a river clean besides Public Relations. How do we save the river without having the entire country pay for it?
Well, unless the factory owns the whole river and whatever the river flows into, they're polluting other people's property by polluting the river and should be held accountable for that. That atmosphere can be treated simliarly. Nobody owns the whole thing, and nobody ever will, so if one person pollutes it, he ows the rest of us for the damage.

Since most of the land that makes up the USA was taken from the Indians through the initiation of force, the only honest libertarian thing to do would be to restore the Indians' property rights and move the entire non-Indian population of the USA to the few bits of land that were actually bought from the Indians through lawful means (like New York).

Of course, that would be the end of the USA, but since when do libertarians care about the real-life consequences of their absurd principles?

Well, unless the factory owns the whole river and whatever the river flows into, they're polluting other people's property by polluting the river and should be held accountable for that. That atmosphere can be treated simliarly. Nobody owns the whole thing, and nobody ever will, so if one person pollutes it, he ows the rest of us for the damage.
Except that if several people pollute it, they'll just throw the blame on each other and challenge you to prove that the smoke you're inhaling is their smoke.

Just want to pop in about the FDA...

For those who don't understand how the FDA could work as a private entity, I have two words: "Underwriters' Laboratory". UL is a private, non-profit organization. People who make electrical devices don't have to send their models to UL for approval; nothing's forcing them.

Except, that is, UL's reputation. People trust the UL label. They trust it so much that many chain stores won't carry a device if it isn't UL listed. A similar setup for drug verification would work nicely.
And how would that be any different or any better than the FDA? If anything, it would be less safe...

Currently, terminal patients can't use unapproved drugs. With drugs taking upwards of 15 years to be approved, these people are doomed to dying because of the FDA. Of course using a non-approved drug is risky, but if I had 6 months to live, I'd be willing to try just about anything. If it kills me, who cares? I was dead anyway.
Fine. Then pass a law to allow terminally ill patients to serve as human guinea pigs if they really want to. If the FDA has one flaw, then fix the flaw rather than trying to abolish the FDA entirely.

The FDA loves saying that some newly approved drug will save X lives a year. Never mind the fact that fifteen times that many people likely died because they couldn't use the drug.
And how many people would have died if an unapproved drug with lethal side effects was allowed to enter the market?

I'm not sure if thishas been mentioned yet, but there is a difference in being Libritarian in political belief and belonging to the Libritarian party.

I wonder, if someone came up to you and said "Sure, I'm a member of the Communist/Fascist/Nazi Party, but there's a difference between how the party feels and how I feel", if you'd not still be concerned or at a minimum "frame" your opinon based on their party affiliation.
J

I'm not a big fan of the LP, and here's a couple of things I've said over the years about them.

1. They're like *extreme* conservative republicians (the kind who feel if it's not in the constitution explicitly, we shouldn't be doing it) WITHOUT any kind of moral compass for their beliefs.

2. The LP is the perfect party, for 1812.

And I really do agree with that 2nd statement. Their beliefs, to be 'left alone' by the government are really more in line with how life was led about 200 years ago.
I guess, the republicians want to return (many times) to the "good old days" of about 50 years ago; the Libertarians 150 years ago.

J

Remember, all libertarians believe in both economic and personal freedom + minimizing the power of the state; but you must understand that libertarians come in all different flavors/variations.

I do agree that the LP isn't so much libertarian as it is anarcho-capitalist
It sounds like the Libertarian party took the views of their most extreme member and used them to write up the party's platform. They need to make it more moderate. Do they think they will attract voters by promising to legalise child prostitution, child porn, and labour laws?

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

I kind of like that one.

Me too. (But keep it our little secret. ;) )

I'm one of the more liberal libertarians...

A lot of libertarian politicies seem ridiculous simply because they get rid of governement institutions that have been here so long. But a libertarian does not look at how long a governmenent institution has been there, it looks at whether or not we NEED the governement institution.

For instance, we don't believe in government regulation of marriage. A few libertarians have proposed a special legal section so that people can combine property and other basic legal matters, but not official governement regulation of it. This may not make much sense, but ask yourself, why does the governement NEED to regulate marriage?

It's my personal opinion that the governement screws up just about everything it gets involved in, so I only want the things that are absolutely necassary to remain. Also, I don't believe in laws that regulate forced morality.

Also, we support such things as school vouchers, which gives education back to the far more efficient free market. We also oppose most governement regulations in the economy, because they simply hurt the economy and make the poor poorer.

That's a basic rundwon on my views of libertarianism.

I'm one of the more liberal libertarians...

A lot of libertarian politicies seem ridiculous simply because they get rid of governement institutions that have been here so long. But a libertarian does not look at how long a governmenent institution has been there, it looks at whether or not we NEED the governement institution.

For instance, we don't believe in government regulation of marriage. A few libertarians have proposed a special legal section so that people can combine property and other basic legal matters, but not official governement regulation of it. This may not make much sense, but ask yourself, why does the governement NEED to regulate marriage?

It's my personal opinion that the governement screws up just about everything it gets involved in, so I only want the things that are absolutely necassary to remain. Also, I don't believe in laws that regulate forced morality.

Also, we support such things as school vouchers, which gives education back to the far more efficient free market. We also oppose most governement regulations in the economy, because they simply hurt the economy and make the poor poorer.

That's a basic rundwon on my views of libertarianism.

Thank you.

I will note that many have distinguished "l" libertarians from "L" Libertarians.

The LP doesn't support vouchers. It supports abolishing all public education and all public support for education. (At least according to its platform. And that certainly doesn't mean every Libertarian agrees.)

Nah, I support vouchers. Most libertarians, like Friedman, do too. It would be impossible to get an education without them. The only reasonable free market way to do it is through vouchers.

While I do generally aline myself more with the libertarian party than the pubs and dems, and I generally consider myself laissez faire, I'm not as apt to believe in AS small of a government. Then again, economically, I'm still more "conservative" than the Republicans.