Posted on 11/01/2002 1:12:37 PM PST by winner45
Ten Reasons to Vote for Libertarians
....even if you don’t like them!
1..Libertarians understand that freedom requires responsibility. Freedom can be denied to those who harm others or the property of others.
2..Libertarians ALWAYS vote against tax increases and ALWAYS vote for freedom.
3..Libertarians understand that freedom and equality go hand in hand. Your freedom to live as you please is given to you by the same authority which gives freedom to the persons who may have different lifestyles. You have to give them their freedom to do that to obtain your freedom.
4..Your freedom is not given by the Constitution. It is given from a higher power. Libertarians understand that the Constitution merely sets it down on paper.
5..Libertarians understand that God is of libertarian spirit. He gave humanity free will. He could have just as easily made humanity incapable of free choice. It is kind of arrogant for government to deny the freedom that God Himself has given. When the Israelites wanted a king, God was offended. Laws by man are petty and inferior.
6..If you are unhappy with both Democrats and Republicans, register your unhappiness with a vote for a Libertarian. If a Libertarian got 30% of the vote, it would scare the pants off of the ruling class. They would become more receptive to reason.
7..Libertarians understand that a good society is built upon hard working individuals doing their best in a responsible way. It seems that the ruling parties think that a good society is built upon government group efforts wherein people work (shirk) together.
8..Libertarians understand that the Bill of Rights is as relevant and crucially important today as it was over 200 years ago. Libertarians even think that our government should start observing it once more.
9..Libertarians realize that freedom has many limitations. The winners of elections do not have the right to lord the will of the majority over the rights of the minorities.
10..Libertarians are the only political people that believe that 98% of our citizens are morally good enough and intelligent enough to run their own lives. Basic laws are there to protect us from the other 2%.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As seen in the above Amendment II, the Constitution does list rights. However, you can not prove that the Constitution and it's listed rights are the word of God nor can you prove the Constitution and these listed rights to be objective reason. These rights as listed in the Constitution have no necessity to be unalienable, thus they are not listed unalienable rights -- THEY ARE DEFINED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Article V allows for changes in the BoR. Changes in the BoR that prevent the exercise of a certain number of my unalienable rights would make the Constitution null and void in my eyes. Changes in the BOR that prevent the exercise of one unalienable right would probably make the Constitution null and void in the libertarians eyes.
Article V was put into the Constitution because it recognizes the falibilities of the Constitution Framers as well as the falibilities of the future Constitution maintainers.
Amendments have been already added that IMO do prevent the exercise of some of my unalienable rights. Yet, at this point I do not consider the Constitution to be null and void. It is this compromise to a certain level that avoids the greater lose of freedom under anarchy. It is the libertarian who doesn't except this compromise and it is the libertarian who doesn't except Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Thus the U.S. Constitution is NOT a libertarian document and Article V is exactly why.
Article V of The U.S. Constitution -- "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
First, RIGHTS are God-Given. If Government gives it,government can change it, so it is not a RIGHT. It's a grant or a privilege or an "entitlement" or whatever but not a RIGHT. Rights are equal to ALL and can only be recognized or violated by government. NOT bestowed. The definition has been corrupted because it is most surely in government's interest to have the people look to IT as the source of every good thing.
IMO, libertarians have changed the definition of the word "right" because libertarians don't recognize the compromise of a DEFINED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
If the word "right" by definition has to include unalienable, then the phrase "unalienable right" would be a redundant phrase.
"Unalienable right" is not a redundant phrase, the founding fathers were not being redundant when they used the phrase and the definition as seen below bears me out; www.dictionary.com -- Right n. -- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
That's right. 98% of our citizens don't vote Libertarian.
Does this mean that if we had no taxes, then the libertarians would not vote the basic taxes needed to run a Constitutional government?
The anarchy slip is showing.
What about the attention given to those people who push mind altering drugs on the minors of this country. You avoid that with your above statement.
It's horrifying to consider that we are forced to discuss the restoration of our Constitution. Even more horrifying, most folk don't get it that we need to have this discussion in the first place. Yet even more horrifying to consider is that if we fail to restore our Constitution, we lose our nation...with all it's principle sacrificed pissing upon the graves of all those brave men and women who sacrificed their lives for our nation and our Constitution. All this we are told is being sacrificed for "the better good of society." And we are supposed to accept this? Disregard our Constitution and all those who fought and died for it?
Yes, free to self exterminate and we would be rid of them. Wouldn't that make your day? Or do you fear you might indulge if you were free to choose? Or maybe you fear you could not prevent your children from avoiding such decadent behavior? Whatever your reason you employ for dissolving our Constitution for the "better good of society," I find it treasonous.
And what percent does not bother to vote at all and why?
Alcoholism may be a disease, but it is still the drinker who decides for the first time that he will consume alcohol. AIDS is also a disease, but like alcoholism, it almost always comes from engaging in behaviors that everyone recognizes as risky.
I wanted to illustrate, without using drugs, what the libertarian philosophy is about social vices. They believe any social vice is okay as long as nobody uses force. But the reality is that lives are damaged, property is damaged and people die from the abuse and misuse of certain substances and behaviors.
Thinking that something should be legal is not the same as thinking it is okay. Few conservatives would suggest making hate speech illegal, but that does not mean they think racism is harmless or okay.
That, in short, is why I am a conservative and not a libertairan or a liberal. I'd rather prevent people from getting addicted rather than making addiction easier - which is what libertarian philosophy would do (though, through their sophistry, they'll deny even that). And that comment on addiction goes for nicotine and alcohol too but we, as a society, have already let those genies out of the bottle and are having to reap the consequences for them (more deaths, higher health care costs, loss of productivity, etc.).
So why not put the genies back in the bottle? There's an infinite number of behaviors and substances that can be shown to cause damage to individuals and society. Where, and how, do you think the line should be drawn between what is permitted and what is forbidden?
I guess, by your logic, heroin addiction is just a personal weakness - no responsibility goes to the drug smuggler who supplied it?
Heroin addiction is the fault of the addict, unless force or fraud was used to get him to consume heroin. The addict was the one who chose to use heroin in the first place. If the addict had rejected the dealer's offer the first time he was exposed to heroin, he wouldn't have developed an addiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.