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%.

[dcwusmc]

So you're saying that taking the property of another nation, just because we "need" it is jake with you? Personally, I find that we have a whole HEAP of oil in our very own country and the Ay-rabs can keep their oil and go back to living in tents in their f-ing oil fields and starve. Or let Allah send them manna from heaven or whatever. BUT keeping ANWR oil in the ground is doing nothing but playing into the hands of the Saudi and other Ay-rab terrorists by handing them HEAPS of our money to buy weapons with which to attack us. That's defense? Get real.

[seanc623]

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?

Ah where to begin? Should we start by walking down memory lane courtesy of the CIA and others who helped build Saddam and the Russians into the threats they are today? Or how about those poor innocent Kuwaitis? The same ones helping terrorists who hate our guts?

Or maybe you'd like to talk about the reason we're so dependent on foreign oil in the first place? The Republicans and Democrats who have blocked domestic oil development? Whew! Talk about a target rich environment!

[DugwayDuke]

Why? It makes no difference why Haitians are poor and Americans are rich. The only thing that matters to a Haitian is that coming to America is a ticket to riches.

[Bush2000]

So you're saying that taking the property of another nation, just because we "need" it is jake with you?

Where did I say that?

[Bush2000]

Should we start by walking down memory lane courtesy of the CIA and others who helped build Saddam and the Russians into the threats they are today? Or how about those poor innocent Kuwaitis? The same ones helping terrorists who hate our guts? Or maybe you'd like to talk about the reason we're so dependent on foreign oil in the first place? The Republicans and Democrats who have blocked domestic oil development? Whew! Talk about a target rich environment!

Stick to the topic at hand. If Iraq or another country attacks one of our trading partners and the partner is unable to defend itself, should we roll over and not do anything about it, despite the fact that we may have a strategic national interest in the trade?

[dcwusmc]

That is the very strong implication of this ...

[Bush2000]

That is the very strong implication of this ...

I hope you don't mind but ... I would prefer if you didn't put words in my mouth.

[dcwusmc]

I wouldn't dream of it. I have no idea where your mouth has been! :-) OTOH, I was asking for clarification of the referenced post. You seemed to be saying that part of the defense of the United States would legitimately be to take control of another country if they tried to interfere with the flow of oil to us. Please clarify that, especially in light of the KNOWN reserves we have within our own borders and those of our (VERY FRIENDLY) northern neighbor.

[Bush2000]

We have no right to usurp another country's resources with force -- UNLESS that country has declared war and committed acts of war against us; in that case, all bets are off. I also believe that we have every right to defend our allies and trading partners who are threatened by foreign aggressors (such as Iraq).

[dcwusmc]

Fair enough. There's room to quibble but I have problems posting long stuff for some reason... so I'll defer until another time. Thanks.

[YCTHouston]

"They call for withdrawal of US military personnel from all foreign countries without regard for our strategic national interests. They want us to remove our nukes from Europe. They want multi-lateral nuclear disarmament. They want our military solely focused on self-defense of US soil."

This is the great hypocrisy of the Losertarians. When you discuss economics and borders, they are all great internationalists. But the second you mention national defense, they suddenly become staunch isolationists and start thumping the Constitution like an illiterate Southern preacher waving around a tattered Bible that he's never read.
Don't worry BushDude, the Losertarians have a very practical solution to national defense: Form citizens' militias, dress up in coattails, powdered wigs and brass buckles shoes,purchase some black-powder long rifles, then sit around smoking a pipe waiting to be invaded.
All they have accomplished thus far is to give the Democrats an early Christmas present in South Dakota. Get off the weed and grow up.

[Schmedlap]

What is the current policy of the United States regarding Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and China? We have 40,000 soldiers within range of N. Korean nuclear missiles. We've got the city of Los Angeles within range of Chinese nuclear missiles. If China invades Taiwan, are we actually going to defend it? If N. Korea invades South Korea, are we going to destroy N. Korea? If either of these things occur while we are in Iraq, what then?

[Destructor]

Today is November 7th! Liberaltarians are irrelevant now!! Thanks for nothing jerks!!! LOL!!!

[EBUCK]

China...most favored nation trading status..we're not gonna do anything against them

Iraq...we're going to invade them and take their oil, regardless of what Iran does.

N. Korea..I'm not really sure what's going on there. We still run our normal military exercises in SK. I think we're just kind of waiting for them to starve enough to give up.

Taiwan...See China above.

EBUCK

[Bush2000]

So, Einstein ... how many races did the Libertarian Party win this year? I'm surprised you're not waving around your dogcatcher wins: "See! See! We are relevant!"

[seanc623]

Stick to the topic at hand. If Iraq or another country attacks one of our trading partners and the partner is unable to defend itself, should we roll over and not do anything about it, despite the fact that we may have a strategic national interest in the trade?

Fair enough; the answer is we obey our Constitution and DO NOTHING. Please tell me where in the Constitution it obligates us to defend other countries, whether we have a strategic national interest or not.

[seanc623]

What is the current policy of the United States regarding Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and China? We have 40,000 soldiers within range of N. Korean nuclear missiles. We've got the city of Los Angeles within range of Chinese nuclear missiles. If China invades Taiwan, are we actually going to defend it? If N. Korea invades South Korea, are we going to destroy N. Korea? If either of these things occur while we are in Iraq, what then?

The current policy regarding Taiwan as I understand it obligates us to defend that country in the event of a Chinese invasion. It's unconstitutional in my opinion but it is the current policy. I believe we also have a related obligation to South Korea in the event they are attacked (again) by the North. Again I believe unconstitutional but it's the current policy.

I don't believe we have an actual treaty obligation to defend any of Iraq's neighbors in the event of an Iraqi invasion but we probably would anyway (unfortunately).

[Bush2000]

Fair enough; the answer is we obey our Constitution and DO NOTHING. Please tell me where in the Constitution it obligates us to defend other countries, whether we have a strategic national interest or not.

This shows how out of step you are with our Founders. Jefferson (Remember him? One of the guys who wrote the Constitution?) deployed American warships to Tripoli when our interests were being threatened by pirates. Honestly, if you guys simply don't understand history and can't connect the dots, how can you expect other Americans to agree with your side?

[Schmedlap]

"Jefferson (Remember him? One of the guys who wrote the Constitution?)..."

Was he at the Constitutional Convention?

[Schmedlap]

"The current policy regarding Taiwan as I understand it obligates us to defend that country in the event of a Chinese invasion. It's unconstitutional in my opinion but it is the current policy. I believe we also have a related obligation to South Korea in the event they are attacked (again) by the North. Again I believe unconstitutional but it's the current policy."

In what way is it unconstitutional?