Ten Reasons to Vote for Libertarians

http://www.votenorman.org ^ | ?/?/2002 | Clarence Young

[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%.

[EBUCK]

What do you think enforces free trade?

Wha?????

There is no need to enforce "free" trade. "Free" trade is the business of conducting trade between individuals/companies/corporations not between nations.

The only thing our gubment should be enforcing is our laws protecting our rights...none of which pertain to doing business overseas with military "help".

Jees, where do you get your definitions?

EBUCK

[seanc623]

What do you think enforces free trade?

The whole point of "free" trade is that it isn't "enforced". It exists because buyers and sellers have a mutual interest in maintaining it, not because of the threat of foreign military deployment.

[seanc623]

What do you think enforces free trade?

The whole point of "free" trade is that it isn't "enforced". It exists because buyers and sellers have a mutual interest in maintaining it, not because of the threat of foreign military deployment.

[EBUCK]

You're taking my reply out of context by chopping it up.

Sorry, thought that you had a multipart answer and responded as such...

The fact is they aren't invading our country to take it over for Mexico,

In actuality some are but we can't know how many because someone is pussyfooting around on the border and not doing thier job.

they're trying to escape that country for a better life here.

At an astronomical cost to me and mine.

EBUCK

[Bush2000]

The whole point of "free" trade is that it isn't "enforced". It exists because buyers and sellers have a mutual interest in maintaining it, not because of the threat of foreign military deployment.

Tell me ... what happens when a third party, say Iraq, threatens your trade relationships with other nations? Do you sit at the edge of your borders and hurl harsh rhetoric at them? Do you wring your hands and call for sanctions? Do you cry and stamp your feet? I'm just curious how you plan to defend our nation if you won't defend our nation.

[EBUCK]

threatens your trade relationships with other nations?

Guess you didn't read my post as usual.

EBUCK

[Jake0001]

Absolutely.

Maintaining a self sufficient economic and industrial infrastructure is essential to our long-term independence.

Keep in mind the Europeans, Chinese and everyone else that can also does such. The British model in our colonial era to maintain control of its subject colonies was to limit economic independence.

Our military power might be uncheckable, but if we have no economic or industrial infrastructure (not just military) to support it, it will falter. That is what ultimately brought down the Soviets.

[Bush2000]

I think it's pretty clear by now that Libertarians don't have a tenable military policy (unless you consider sticking your head in the domestic sand tenable); in fact, the phrase "what a joke" springs to mind.

[EBUCK]

I can see we're going no where on this so I'll give you guys something else to talk about....FIRE!

Regards,

EBUCK

[seanc623]

Tell me ... what happens when a third party, say Iraq, threatens your trade relationships with other nations? Do you sit at the edge of your borders and hurl harsh rhetoric at them? Do you wring your hands and call for sanctions? Do you cry and stamp your feet? I'm just curious how you plan to defend our nation if you won't defend our nation.

First of all if Iraq is threatening another nation that nation is responsible for its own defense as we are responsible for our own. But how has Iraq threatened those relationships anyway? How is Iraq anymore of a threat than many other nations like Communist China that we wouldn't dream of invading unless they were suicidal enough to attack us directly.

[seanc623]

Funny that you should bring up the Constitution. I wonder what Mr. Jefferson, one of our Founders, was thinking when he sent warships to attack the Barbary pirates off of Tripoli for attacking our ships and hindering trade. Dude, you're beating the wrong drum. There are ample historic precendents to show that the Founders agreed completely with my view that our national interests are not limited by our borders. The fact that Libertarians have to reach outside the Founder's intentions shows how intellectually bankrupt and reactionary you are.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. So what would you have done when Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries nationalized (stole) American companies' oil fields? Would you have gone to war against them?

[seanc623]

The fact is they aren't invading our country to take it over for Mexico,

In actuality some are but we can't know how many because someone is pussyfooting around on the border and not doing thier job.

Please elaborate. Who and why?

[seanc623]

Do you wring your hands and call for sanctions?

If you knew the LP platform you would know we don't support sanctions. We wouldn't wring our hands; we would expect the companies involved to protect their investments in other countries and unlike Republicans we wouldn't interfere with their right to do so. Why should my taxes go to defend someone else's economic interests?

[seanc623]

I wonder what Mr. Jefferson, one of our Founders, was thinking when he sent warships to attack the Barbary pirates off of Tripoli for attacking our ships and hindering trade.

You'll have to refresh my memory about that incident. You say they were our ships? Who exactly did they belong to?

[EBUCK]

AZTLAN

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

Guess you were never indoctrinated into the USMC's history.

I'll let Bush2K splain it to ya, good night.

EBUCK

[seanc623]

Yup, they are. Not to mention the theft of my property conducted thru the US gubs armed robbery and re-distribution programs.

This is obviously an important issue to you because you've mentioned it a couple of different times now. All the more reason to vote a straight LP ticket whenever possible since we're the only party that is ALWAYS against this theft.

[Bush2000]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html

"[Jefferson] also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean. Further, although the Constitution made no provision for the acquisition of new land, Jefferson suppressed his qualms over constitutionality when he had the opportunity to acquire the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon in 1803."

[Bush2000]

...We wouldn't wring our hands; we would expect the companies involved to protect their investments in other countries and unlike Republicans we wouldn't interfere with their right to do so. Why should my taxes go to defend someone else's economic interests?

And what happens when your strategic trading partner happens to be a small country such as Kuwait -- and it's invaded by a larger aggressor such as Iraq or Russia? What if Kuwait supplied the bulk of our oil? Would you expect us to simply roll over and get kicked by our enemies?

[seanc623]

It depends on how you define skyrocketing. 1 in 10 Americans is chronically dependent on alcohol today. That's significantly higher than during Prohibition.

For one thing there weren't many people left to drink after Prohibition was through. It killed so many of them between the gang violence it created and the deadly concoctions underground distributors were providing to desperate customers.