"Because we're right. On virtually everything. "--->"Uhhh...no."
Uhhh...yes. I was using "right" in terms of "right-left." The only consistent way to look at "right" versus "left" is to say that "left" is where the government controls everything, and "right" is where the government controls nothing (i.e., anarchy).
Since there is no Anarchist party, the Libertarian Party represents the absolute farthest "right" party in the United States. That's the truth. The Republican Party is so far to the left of the Libertarian Party that it's not even funny. (It's depressing.)
"One thing Libertarians do which drives me nuts is they cheer people who carry handguns against the law, or smoke weed against the law (all of which may or may not have merit) as a form of protest."
I don't agree that "Libertarians" (meaning the majority of Libertarians) do either of those things. But even if they did, "as a form of protest" (which I don't agree is the reason, either)...what of it? Those violations of the law hurt no one.
"However, when some dictator is threatening American Citizens they bring up the Law saying stuff like, 'No, you cannot kill Saddam, it's against the Bill of Attainment clause in the Constitution.'"
It's Bill of Attainder. And it was put in the Constitution for a very good reason: English Kings found it to be very easy to have their Parliaments take a person's property--or even life--without any trial to establish that those persons had broken any law. Juries of one's peers are more difficult to sway, because juries aren't partnered with the King in ruling the land, but are instead citizens, like the accused.
"Either it's okay to break the law at times or it isn't you cannot have it both ways."
This seems to be a matter of confusion here at Free Republic. Libertarians' (or at least *this* Libertarian's) views on the matter don't conflict at all.
It is *generally* morally right for a *citizen* to follow The Law. It is actually *immoral*, in my opinion, for a citizen to follow an *immoral* law, especially in a manner that hurts a fellow citizen. "Immoral" laws, in my opinion, consist of laws that are both: 1) illegitimate, and 2) unnecessarily harmful. For example, I would *never* vote to convict on a federal charge involving medical marijuana. (In fact, a jury in California recently sentenced a man to up to 15 years in federal prison on just such a charge.)
The reason what that jury did was immoral--again, in my opinion--was that: 1) federal medical marijuana laws are unconstitutional, and this illegitimate, and 2) medical marijuana laws are unnecessarily harmful, because both parties are willing participants in the transaction.
So it's *generally* immoral for citizens to break the law. But it is ALWAYS immoral for elected government officials to break The Law (when they are making laws, or disregarding them).
The reason it's ALWAYS immoral for elected government officials to break The Law (e.g., the Constitution) is because they swear an OATH (to
G@d, in most cases!) to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, they are breaking an oath when THEY break The Law.
I don't see at all what the problem is for G.W. Bush to *demand* that the Congress give an up-or-down vote on whether or not to declare war on Saddam Hussein. Bush and all members of Congress take an oath to follow the Constitution, and I don't see--in this case, especially--why any one of them should have trouble honoring that oath.
I agree w/ you on declaring war constitutionally and I agree w/ you that while the average joe six pack can, at times, ignore certain laws, while our leaders should ALWAYS follow the law.
What I meant by the "follow the law" statement was how some "Libertarians" on this board were trying to apply domestic civil law to Saddam (i.e. not enough evidence).
While I've considered myself a "Libertarian", though I've never voted LP, for a few years, the reaction of prominent Libertarians to 9-11 was more than dismaying. I wish they just stuck to "Declare War Constituitionally" instead of tripe and nonsense that has been put forth by some.