NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.libertarianism.com/

This explains everything about the Ideals of
libertarianism. go there or be square. :mad:

http://www.libertarianism.com/

This explains everything about the Ideals of
libertarianism. go there or be square. :mad:
No, you're a towel!

No, you're a towel!
And you're a, you're a . . . . :confused:

I'm all for personal freedom, but I don't like businesses.

Welcome to the fold child, welcome.

And you're a, you're a . . . . :confused:
Mwuhahaaa!!

Libertarian capitalist

Is there a purpose of the thread, should we comment on libertarianism? Either way, I'll be vague and juvenile: :D

Libertarianism sucks, in the bad way.

So let me see if I get this Libertarianism stuff.

Libertarianists think that personal freedom and government action lie on opposite ends of a continum?

(Am I right so far?)

But what about government actions that increase my freedom? For example, speed limits, which increase my freedom by enabling me to drive longer and further without dying? Are speed limits okay?

I would guess that Japan is probably the most Libertarian country I've been to. I could travel anywhere, anytime without fear or concern. There is more small business than anywhere else in the world. Taxes are very low for the bulk of the population. Many people think it's okay to kill yourself if you want, etc.

Libertarianists think that a small government with little regulation of the market but does not limit civil rights is the Ideal government. They thought of the Idea of Privitising Social security, but support Gay Rights among other things.


A right winged economic view with a left winged social view.

Doesn't government protect us from other forces running roughshod over our liberties?

Also, please say you're in favor of meat regulations?

well, meat regulations would lower, but there would still be some... :rolleyes:

Yes socially liberal and fiscally conservative politics are a great idea, I would love to see it implemented somewhere besides "Atlas Shrugged".

And no, I do not think speed limits would survive a libertarian revolution :p

Doesn't government protect us from other forces running roughshod over our liberties?

Also, please say you're in favor of meat regulations?

I'm a liberal-leaning libertarian myself. The basic idea is that the government's only purpose is to do what it must in order to ensure the basic protection of the livelihood of the population and the liberty of the people. That means that it would definitely do everything to protect the people against those who would threaten them. Meat regulations, I would think, are far too important for the safety of people at such relatively little freedom cost that libertarians wouldn't shun it.

ya, what he said, i'm just to tired to explain it logically

Doesn't government protect us from other forces running roughshod over our liberties?

Also, please say you're in favor of meat regulations?

Poor-quality meat shouldn't be bought in the first place, anyway, though, yeah, dude, commas, kick, ass, when, used, wrongingly.

:mad: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :mad: ,,

, ;) ,

Yes socially liberal and fiscally conservative politics are a great idea, I would love to see it implemented somewhere besides "Atlas Shrugged".

And no, I do not think speed limits would survive a libertarian revolution :p

What about air traffic control people at the airport?

So, Libertarianism is for no government legislation except when it is helpful? That's a very good idea. I'm never voting for the unhelpful government legislation party again.

I'm all for personal freedom, but I don't like businesses.

Contradiction, business is a relationship constructed between people in exercize of personal freedom. You can't be for one, and against the other.

And this explains everything that's wrong with libertarianism:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Contradiction, business is a relationship constructed between people in exercize of personal freedom. You can't be for one, and against the other.
Define "personal freedom".

And I don't think anyone in his right mind believes that people should have the freedom to do anything. Everyone, including libertarians and even anarchists, believes that some freedoms should be restricted (my freedom to kill you, for example).

And this explains everything that's wrong with libertarianism:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
"And this explains everything that's wrong with. . .:"

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

I see that this badly named "Libertarism" suffers from the same basic flaw than most other heavily utopic political trends: the assumption that people won't abuse it. I'm for all for a minimalistic goverment, but it has to be the garant of the equity and sadly enough equity in real world has to be enforced or we'll try to abuse others to elevate our status and that's something any gov. has to deal with.

And this explains everything that's wrong with libertarianism:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
"And this explains everything that's wrong with. . .:"

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html
Uh, no. That's just a response to the "Non-Libertarian FAQ", which is only part of the Critiques Of Libertarianism website.

There is also a response to the response, by the way:
http://www.geocities.com/jonathanandreas/lib1.html

And a response to the response to the response:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/rerebutal_re_huben.htm

And finally a response to the response to the response to the response:
http://www.geocities.com/jonathanandreas/lib2.html

(the anti-libertarian side had the last word; it looks like David Friedman gave up)

liberterans r dum

liberterans r dum

At least as dumb as those who can't spell anything I suppose.

Doesn't government protect us from other forces running roughshod over our liberties?

Also, please say you're in favor of meat regulations?
Nobody believes that it's okay to sell shoddy meat. Libertarians would allow you to sue for damages or jail the seller if someone sells you poisoned food. This is a more efficient way to ensure safety than having some bureaucrat tell the butcher how to do his job and increasing the cost to the consumer. It's like making it illegal to kill someone rather than having compulsory anger management classes for the entire population.

And this explains everything that's wrong with libertarianism:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
I've been through that and there are 2 types of arguments in it. The ones attacking positions most libertarians don't agree with anyway, and the ones that are wrong.

I see that this badly named "Libertarism" suffers from the same basic flaw than most other heavily utopic political trends: the assumption that people won't abuse it.
I don't assume that. In fact, the reason most libertarians favour free markets and other voluntary institutions is that they have inbuilt mechanisms against abuse. What's quite tragic is that most people assume that the rich and powerful won't abuse the system in social democracy, despite the fact they clearly do. Hence, imperialist America's wars for oil, corporate welfare, regulations to shut down competition in business....

A utopian system is one that wouldn't work if tried. Every aspect of the Libertarian manifesto worked better than the alternatives whenever it was tried.

Define "personal freedom".

And I don't think anyone in his right mind believes that people should have the freedom to do anything. Everyone, including libertarians and even anarchists, believes that some freedoms should be restricted (my freedom to kill you, for example).

One persons freedom ends where anothers begins....

Everything in libertarianism stems from that point of view.

Freedom to engage in interrelationships with others, contracturally between willing parties (business), is a personal freedom. The two are not dis-connected. And that freedom is always personal, as long as it does not impinge of the rights of another. Using my rights to abuse anothers, however, is not "freedom". Business is an extension of personal inter-relationships for fiscal or other matters defined around an agreement between the parties entering that relationship (much like a marriage or other legal union) in the form of a contract.

When I enter into a contractural relationship with my partner, combining personal assets into the formation of a corporation/cooperation between our assets and abilities. And then use these, combined, to form contractural agreements with other businesses or individual for the trade of goods or services with the other, applicable to the private desires of the parties as expressed in contract. We are conducting business. As long as such is in bounds of the agreement between the parties (contract), it is no business of yours or another party outside of that contract. (The second part, your rights end, where ours begin). If I were trading expertise and labor in the installation of a network in a hotel, whereby the hotel is, by contract, compensating me and my contracted partner for our abilities and labor in this matter... You, nor soceity in general is a party to, or effected by, the exercize of this right to conduct private business with another or others. As it is our ability and labor begin placed in tradt by contract with the hotel.

If your against "business" your against "personal freedom" in the absolute sense and practical aspect of it all.

By the assumption that my labor and capabilities, which exist in my possession as a person, and through my possession by my own devices and labor, is restricted by another with no claims upon my personhood for such. It tantamount to theft of myself as a person. And an assumption that you, or your peers have "ownership" of my person. Since it is obvious you do not possess "my person", and have no claims to my "labor/work" or abilities as a person. Then you cannot claim damage to your person, by the exercize of such, by myself. Since exercize as such does not cross the line whereby it enters the realm of "your rights".... I have full and complete exercize of my own rights in such matters.... Thus, the conduct of this "business" is a logical, and neccessary extension of my rights as a person.

I'm trying to get a handle on this, so please tell me, are libertarianists for or against speed limits?

I'm trying to get a handle on this, so please tell me, are libertarianists for or against speed limits?
If the road is privately owned then the owner decides if there should be a speed limit and what it should be. Some so-called libertarians want govt owned roads and there is no party line really on what should happen then, although I'd guess most would want higher speed limits. There's nothing "un-libertarian" about driving slow past schools!

I'm all for libertarianism, in moderation.

It's the extremist views that I think are idiotic. You know, stuff like "We should get rid of all taxes and you should get to voluntarily pay for police and firefighters and we should do away with all regulatory agencies like the EPA and FDA!!! Yeah, then we'd have a wonderful life, just like those people in the 1800's!!!!"

I'm all for libertarianism, in moderation.

It's the extremist views that I think are idiotic. You know, stuff like "We should get rid of all taxes and you should get to voluntarily pay for police and firefighters and we should do away with all regulatory agencies like the EPA and FDA!!! Yeah, then we'd have a wonderful life, just like those people in the 1800's!!!!"
In other words, you're not a libertarian. The FDA saves thousands of lives by banning untested drugs. It has also murdered over 7 million people by banning drugs that could have saved them, which later turned out to be safe. They don't want to risk making headlines, see. And 7 million unseen deaths is less politically damaging than a couple of thalydimide babies. Did you know penicillin wouldn't pass FDA regulations if it was invented today? Thanks a shedload, Chet.

And yeah, if there was no govt intervention all the wealth, skills and capital we've developed since the 1800s would disappear. The 1800s would've been even worse if the current system had been in place then. Think Russia, China or India.

I'm investing in Rwanda pharmacuticals.

It has also murdered over 7 million people by banning drugs that could have saved them, which later turned out to be safe.

I'm sure you have some sort of source for those numbers? Or are you just making them up?

Did you know penicillin wouldn't pass FDA regulations if it was invented today?

Oh really? Why is that? Are you saying that penicillin can not be demonstrated to be safe and useful?

I'm sure you have some sort of source for those numbers? Or are you just making them up?

"Healing our World" by Mary Ruwart. You can read it online.


Oh really? Why is that? Are you saying that penicillin can not be demonstrated to be safe and useful?
It wouldn't pass their tests. Ruwart is the source for this claim too, though not from her book I think. Can't remember where I read it but it stuck in my mental-brain.

Allowing people to sue drug companies if their products do damage is all the regualtion that is required. If it's extremely unprofitable to poison people only supervillains will do it.

Violently intervening in peoples' lives doesn't bring good results on a personal level, why would you think it could on a bigger scale?

"Healing our World" by Mary Ruwart. You can read it online.

Started to read the chapter on medicine regulation. Found a falsehood right away. 2 years indeed. It is, by their own regulations, illegal for the FDA to take that long to approve or disapprove.

It wouldn't pass their tests. Ruwart is the source for this claim too, though not from her book I think. Can't remember where I read it but it stuck in my mental-brain.

And it is a bullshit claim. It might be marketed as something that could not be used in pregnant women, from what she says. But it would not be banned completely.

Allowing people to sue drug companies if their products do damage is all the regualtion that is required. If it's extremely unprofitable to poison people only supervillains will do it.

Yes, that is why companies in the early 1900's were marketing "cure-alls" that were said to cure everything, and also could be used to dye your hair and clean your floors.

I also doubt her account of the AIDs patients not being able to get medicines without testing, as the FDA has special regulations for populations for which there is no treatment. There is much less regulation and drugs can get through with much less testing.

I'm all for libertarianism, in moderation.

It's the extremist views that I think are idiotic. You know, stuff like "We should get rid of all taxes and you should get to voluntarily pay for police and firefighters and we should do away with all regulatory agencies like the EPA and FDA!!! Yeah, then we'd have a wonderful life, just like those people in the 1800's!!!!"

What environmental problems were so prevalent in the 1800s and why do we need the EPA?

What environmental problems were so prevalent in the 1800s and why do we need the EPA?

Many of the current problems weren't yet prevalent. We didn't have the technology.

Some were, however. Factories belching huge amounts of chemicals into the air, causing sickness in their workers and any surrounding residential areas. Companies dumping things pretty much anywhere they felt like it - where children and animals could easily get into them. In truth, pretty much the same problems we have now - just on a smaller scale.

Libertarian Communism for all!

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/tennessee/image/12/cnt.JPG

Nobody believes that it's okay to sell shoddy meat. Libertarians would allow you to sue for damages or jail the seller if someone sells you poisoned food. This is a more efficient way to ensure safety than having some bureaucrat tell the butcher how to do his job and increasing the cost to the consumer.
Meatpacking factories should not be allowed to permit their product to leave the factory full of shit and lethal diseases. Being able to sue is not much help when you're dead. Health is more important to me than money (good health is also necessary to make money). I would much rather have good meat at a few cents extra cost than run a high risk of destroying my life because of one meal.

Since regulation on meat producers was relaxed in America, cases of severe meat poisoning have skyrocketed. I don't think that's an acceptable price to pay just for some half-baked ideology.

Libertarianism is basically the exact opposite of communism. Communism demands a lagre, authortarian government with complete control over economy. In a Libertarian government, you can live your live as you please in a capitalist society AS LONG AS you do not interfere with the rights of other individuals. Libertarians understand the diversity of Individuals, but also understand that anyone can acheive set goals if they work hard enough. If they dont work hard enough it is not the taxpayers responsibility to support them. This is a more right winged economic policy, but unlike the conservitive, Libertarians are extremely tolerant with other peoples wants, as long as it doesnt harm them. They take the best Ideas from the Right and the Left, and fuse it together. :cool:

Libertarianism is basically the exact opposite of communism. Communism demands a lagre, authortarian government with complete control over economy. In a Libertarian government, you can live your live as you please in a capitalist society AS LONG AS you do not interfere with the rights of other individuals. Libertarians understand the diversity of Individuals, but also understand that anyone can acheive set goals if they work hard enough. If they dont work hard enough it is not the taxpayers responsibility to support them. This is a more right winged economic policy, but unlike the conservitive, Libertarians are extremely tolerant with other peoples wants, as long as it doesnt harm them. They take the best Ideas from the Right and the Left, and fuse it together.

Actually, communism itself is a stateless, classless society where markets are no longer used. Marxism is a path to it that is authoritarian in nature.

Actually, communism itself is a stateless, classless society where markets are no longer used. Marxism is a path to it that is authoritarian in nature.

No, Communism is basically Marxism. Socialism is a "stateless, classless society", or it at least tries to be.

No, Communism is basically Marxism. Socialism is a "stateless, classless society", or it at least tries to be.

Then you don't understand socialism and communism as well as you should.

Look! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Libertarian Man! (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/lman.html)

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/tennessee/image/12/cnt.JPG
All you pseudo-libertarians (libert. socialist/communist), please leave the thread on account of how libertarianism and socialism are NOT the same.....

Look! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Libertarian Man! (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/lman.html)


All you pseudo-libertarians (libert. socialist/communist), please leave the thread on account of how libertarianism and socialism are NOT the same.....
How the hell could anyone confuse the two?

How the hell could anyone confuse the two?
Because of all the ppl who cloak themselves under the guise of 'libertarian socialist' - then again this is just a stickler for me (I once created a thread telling libert. socialists to stop using that name, since libertarians have been taking flak for them)

Because of all the ppl who cloak themselves under the guise of 'libertarian socialist' - then again this is just a stickler for me (I once created a thread telling libert. socialists to stop using that name, since libertarians have been taking flak for them)
The two terms are an oxymoron.

Like I already said, Libertarianism and Communism are opposites.

Communist -> :)
Libertarian -> :cool:
Republican -> :mad:
Anarchist -> :mp5:
Democrat -> :fluffle:
Green -> :rolleyes:

So, Libertarianism is for no government legislation except when it is helpful? That's a very good idea. I'm never voting for the unhelpful government legislation party again.

Amen. :D

Like I already said, Socialism and Communism are opposites.

Communist -> :)
Libertarian -> :cool:
Republican -> :mad:
Anarchist -> :mp5:
Democrat -> :fluffle:
Green -> :rolleyes:
I like that scale, but Democrat should be with the Republican.

libertarian - Tolerant Capitalist, support small government, no taxes, openminded (more moderate form of anarchy)

Communist - Tolerant Socialist, support Overpoweringly large government, Extreme Taxes, openminded

Nobody believes that it's okay to sell shoddy meat. Libertarians would allow you to sue for damages or jail the seller if someone sells you poisoned food. This is a more efficient way to ensure safety than having some bureaucrat tell the butcher how to do his job and increasing the cost to the consumer. It's like making it illegal to kill someone rather than having compulsory anger management classes for the entire population.

This is a common libertarian answer and it never ceases to amaze and amuse me.

Why do you favor regulation by the judiciary?

Most libertarians I encounter have great contempt for the courts and lawyers -- yet their solutions to most public realm problems is to allow people to sue.

Among the many, many flaws in such an answer:

1) Merely shifts power from the elected branches of government to the unelected.

2) Only tackles any problem on a piecemeal basis.

who says they are putting ALL power in the judiciary? they may increase power, but they would still limit it.

(The FDA) murdered over seven million people by banning drugs...
I have a great idea to get rich! Let's pool some money, go to the Caribean, find a complient govenment, grease a few palms, and then open a medical center that offers drugs that are banned in the U.S. We'll make a fortune! People can take combination holidays and medical treatment. Nurses will be cheap. Hell, we can even build a brothel next door and try out experimental STD cures! We'll have rich Americans flocking to our center. It'll be great for us, great for the island economy, the rich Americans will be cured, and the pharmacutical companies could even pay us to try out their drugs. The experimental drugs might not always work and so result in legal complications, but that's what Swiss bank accounts are for.

Let's raise 3 million dollars at $100 a share. If NSers can come up with $10,000 I can go to Jamaica and start an initial study. (I'll also look into that brothel thing while I'm there.)

that may not be a bad idea...

I volunteer to be in charge of the Brothel ;)

I like that scale, but Democrat should be with the Republican.

How bout this

Democrat-Republican -> :mad:
Facist-> :headbang:
Communist -> :)
Green-> :p
Libertarian-> :cool:
Anarchist-> :mp5:
Liberal-> :confused:
Conservative-> :(

Because of all the ppl who cloak themselves under the guise of 'libertarian socialist' - then again this is just a stickler for me (I once created a thread telling libert. socialists to stop using that name, since libertarians have been taking flak for them)

Why? Socialists have used the term Libertarian for themselves long before capitalists started using it.

All you pseudo-libertarians (libert. socialist/communist), please leave the thread on account of how libertarianism and socialism are NOT the same.....

Socialism can be libertarian, though.

who says they are putting ALL power in the judiciary? they may increase power, but they would still limit it.

I didn't say they were putting ALL power in the judiciary.

Way to avoid the question. :rolleyes:

Letila, you obviusely do not know what the policys of the National libertarian party. They are the OPPOSITE of socialists. just go to the website


libertarianism.com

damn communist -> :)

((((You are a

Social Liberal
(85% permissive)



and an...

Economic Conservative
(88% permissive)



You are best described as a:


Libertarian


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. )))))



I just did that political test on OKcupid. com and I got Libertarian. I was right on the border of anarchist, though.

Letila, you obviusely do not know what the policys of the National libertarian party. They are the OPPOSITE of socialists. just go to the website


libertarianism.com
Now, the problem here is that you both have differeing definitions of 'libertarian'.
You're thinking the US Libertarian Party.
While Letila is thinking something more like civil libertarianism.

Libertarianism mainly impacts our Federal government. It calls for extremely low taxation, lots of private companies and so on.

For example, the FDA would be privatized and competition would be allowed to exist. There would be several meat inspection companies competing for business. The meat-packing plant would still be required to submit to inspections, only now they could choose between competitors for the lowest price on inspection. The inspectors, now employed by these private companies, would still be required to ensure that it complies with the same federal codes.

Difference is, taxpayers are no longer supporting a huge bureaucracy, competition keeps the costs down.

This is exactly the same situation with drivers and car insurance. You cannot legally drive without car insurance, therefore you MUST go buy car insurance. You get to choose who insures you and at what rate, but must also comply with minimum insurance levels. The insurer of your car has to comply with laws regarding insurers.

Even in an extreme Libertarian system, there would still be police and other groups with investigative and statutory arrest authority, but they might be getting paid by a police or investigation agency instead of a government.

Privatization is a huge central notion of Libertarianism, but it IS NOT ANARCHY. That is the most key misunderstood notion about Libertarians, btw.

Letila, you obviusely do not know what the policys of the National libertarian party. They are the OPPOSITE of socialists. just go to the website


libertarianism.com

damn communist -> :)


Psst. That website is not that of the Libertarian Party.

That is here (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml).

And I suggest you not rely too heavily on the "official" policies -- or you can be made to look pretty silly.

yes, I know it was not the "official" website, but it better explains to people who dont know what it is.

I dont stick to "official" policys, Its just that I agree with most of them (some are a little extreme though, but not many)

Objectivist Patriots had the best summary of it. Im not the most skilled writer.

And I suggest you not rely too heavily on the "official" policies -- or you can be made to look pretty silly.

Yeah, like the recently debated policy that the government shouldn't keep willing children from making porn.

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Preamble of the National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Thanks, Seperatist.

I'm a hard-core Liberatarian.

BTW, I am jealous of how good your nation is doing! What's you secret?

the longer you play, the better it gets... ;)

It would be alot better If I hadnt outlawed Debates in congress though(2nd Issue)

((((Victimless Crimes

The Issue: Activities which do not affect anyone but the actor have been criminalized by government on the basis of encoding a particular morality into law.

The Principle: Only actions that infringe on the rights or damage the property of others can properly be termed crimes.

Solutions: We favor the repeal of all federal, state and local laws creating "crimes" without victims. ))))

one of many stances the Liberatarian party takes

oh and I have an anarchy(:mp5: ) nation too (Independent CityStates)

Some (probably communist) NSers have been complaining that I broke my contract after I took their $10,000 and went on a fact finding mission to Jamaica to investigate building a Libertarian medical center in Jamaica. This is scandalous defamation. I did NOT break my contract. If you read the document carefully, at no point does it state that I would not give funds to a health specialist called Molly Mouth to demonstrate traditional Jamacian methods of extracting tension from the human body. And the party I threw at the Boom-Boom Kiss-Kiss club was just me using my freedom to do business in the best way I saw fit. Read the contract, you have no grounds to sue me. And if you don't like it, you can use your freedom to go jump in the lake.

I am going to make a new thread to more organizedly discuss Libertarianism. See you guys there.

(and objective patriots, its ok if I use your paragraph, right? I cant wright, let alone spell)

Some (probably communist) NSers have been complaining that I broke my contract after I took their $10,000 and went on a fact finding mission to Jamaica to investigate building a Libertarian medical center in Jamaica. This is scandalous defamation. I did NOT break my contract. If you read the document carefully, at no point does it state that I would not give funds to a health specialist called Molly Mouth to demonstrate traditional Jamacian methods of extracting tension from the human body. And the party I threw at the Boom-Boom Kiss-Kiss club was just me using my freedom to do business in the best way I saw fit. Read the contract, you have no grounds to sue me. And if you don't like it, you can use your freedom to go jump in the lake.

Anyone signing a contract that allowed for that would deserve all they got. I guess they were also stupid enough to wear lead belts when they jumped in the lake so that is the end of thjat problem.

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

*snip*

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Preamble of the National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Isn't that special?

Let's take a closer look:

1. 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

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

3. We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary
treatment in a mental institution.

4. We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.

5. Repeal property tax laws and force government to fund property protection services with user fees. (And the practical difference would be ....?)

6. 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.

7. Wherever possible, private security agencies should replace public institutions.

8. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. (emphasis added)

9. We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military.

10. 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.

11. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.

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

13. 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.


http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#crime
(If necesssary, I'll post some other results of these "principles" in subsequent posts.)

Like I said the Party is Slightly more, oh how should I put this, Extreme then neccesary.

Look! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Libertarian Man! (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/lman.html)


All you pseudo-libertarians (libert. socialist/communist), please leave the thread on account of how libertarianism and socialism are NOT the same.....

Ummmm...nah.

Yo, Capitalist.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), whole cities and regions declared "comunismo libertario" [Libertarian Communism]. Anarchists and syndicalists had been using the term "Libertarian" for at least the previous century.

To cut to the chase; stop using our moniker (and tarnishing its good reputation), kthxbi.

We've been through this before. Capitalists don't have a monopoly on the word "Libetarian" and neither were they the first to use it to describe their politics. The End. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8451611)

Why? Socialists have used the term Libertarian for themselves long before capitalists started using it.



Socialism can be libertarian, though.

To set the record straight; and I know I'll probably be getting flack for this... but the term libertarian was used, in the french form "libertaire" by the ardently "anarcho-communists" of Paris during the French Revolution..... So, in many respects they do have "pre-eminence" of the name, and as much valid right to use it as we anarcho-capitalists.