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%.

[Bush2000]

Was he at the Constitutional Convention?

Spoken like an attorney: Never ask a question for which you don't already know the answer. Jefferson was in Paris at the time; however, it is clear from his communications with Madison that he helped draft the Constitutional framework.

[Schmedlap]

"Spoken like an attorney: Never ask a question for which you don't already know the answer."

Maybe that's why everyone hates attorneys.

[winner45]

Cincinatus: 1. You've thrown away your vote on a candidate who will never be elected.

This is a false myth. By voting Libertarian, one denies approval to either the democrat or republican Socialists who pass for politicians in this country. Pollys of the two main parties are socialists and will do what socialists do. Vote for them and you give them your mandate to rob you of what's left of your human dignity. Your freedom is long gone.

BTW, I apologize for the tardiness of my reply.

[winner45]

Thanks for the sentiment.

[winner45]

See the Cato poliocy analysis: Thinking About Drug Legalization at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121es.html

[Cincinatus]

This is a false myth.

As opposed to a true myth, huh?

By voting Libertarian, one denies approval to either the democrat or republican Socialists who pass for politicians in this country. Pollys of the two main parties are socialists and will do what socialists do.

This will come as a big shock to you -- I don't agree that the Republicans are socialists. I do think that many Democrats are. Thus, I do not for a moment regret voting for Republicans, especially as it helped, in at least some measure, to deny office to a Democrat.

Our disagreement on this point aside, I frankly cannot see how you can deny my original point, at least as far as national elections go. There are no Libertarians elected to any national office. Thus, my comment that you've voted for someone who won't be elected stands unrefuted.

[Lurking2Long]

You could send me a thousand websites with sob stories about innocents killed by the WODs and it would not change my mind one bit.

War has casualties...the issue in war is not the casualties but the stakes...the stakes in this war are clear...allowing drug use to escalate (which it would if they were legal) will kill many more (guilty and innocent) than the WOD would ever kill.

[EBUCK]

You could send me a thousand websites with sob stories about innocents killed by the WODs and it would not change my mind one bit.

So long as the greater good is served there are no methods that would deter you. Never mind that your so-called war is a war on our own people. Never mind that your so-called war is a war on our Constitutional freedoms, freedoms retained for you by real men fighting and dying in a real war agains real aggressors. No, never mind all that. You are pissing on their graves with a statement like that.

EBUCK

[Bush2000]

This is a false myth.

Nonsense.

By voting Libertarian, one denies approval to either the democrat or republican Socialists who pass for politicians in this country.

Wrong. Your vote primarily dilutes the GOP column. Do you honestly think that the Democratic party is closer to you on the issues of the income tax? Reduced government size? Immigration? Borders? If so, you're dreeeeeeeeeeeeaaming, sunshine.

Pollys of the two main parties are socialists and will do what socialists do. Vote for them and you give them your mandate to rob you of what's left of your human dignity. Your freedom is long gone.

Thank you, Ross Perot and Harry Browne, for promising an alternative and delivering Bill Clinton. You Libertarians are extremely useful to the Democratic party, despite your protestations to the contrary.

[Schmedlap]

From the Republican Party platform:

"We therefore enthusiastically endorse the principles of Governor Bush’s Tax Cut with a Purpose:

Replace the five current tax brackets with four lower ones, ensuring all taxpayers significant tax relief while targeting it especially toward low-income workers.

Help families by doubling the child tax credit to $1,000, making it available to more families, and eliminating the marriage penalty."

Choosing one passage from the Republican Party platform was tough, because so much of it is crap. I think that this is the biggest issue that Libertarians take with Republicans. Contrary to how many in this thread have chosen to characterize Libertarians, I don't know any who care about the availability of drugs. They tend to be people who are sick of getting half of their money taken in taxes. However, they do not desire for 40% of it to be confiscated, rather than 50%. They want a more substantial reduction. The tax plan quoted above doesn't cut it.

Here is a link for the Republican Party platform: http://www.rnc.org/gopinfo/platform

[Schmedlap]

"...the stakes in this war are clear...allowing drug use to escalate (which it would if they were legal)..."

If your neighbor smokes crack, in the privacy of his home, and does not leave his house until sober, and does no harm to anyone besides himself in the process, do you think that police should arrest him and put him in prison for that?

[Lurking2Long]

Yes, because I never know when his DRUG ABUSE might escalate into some kind of PYSCHOTIC EPISODE!

(Libertarians can't seem to understand, what seems innocent now, might not be so innocent LATER...)

[Schmedlap]

What if he owns matches and kerosine? You never know when he might burn your house down.

By your reasoning, shouldn't we also ban alcohol? You never know when he's going to get drunk, get behind the wheel of his car, and slam it into your living room.

[Bush2000]

Tell me: Should the rest of us have to pay for his drug rehab when he melts down? Should the rest of us have to pay for his child support when he can't support his family? Should the rest of us have to pay for shelter when he loses his house? Should the rest of us have to pay for his family's medical care because he can't provide any? Quite frankly, it is precisely because Libertarians refuse to connect the dots from the onset of illegal behavior to its pernicious effects that convinces me that the LP is full of druggies and nutcases (not mutually exclusive).

[Bush2000]

What if he owns matches ...

Stop erecting strawmen. The issue is specifically illicit drug abuse.

[Schmedlap]

"Should the rest of us have to pay for his drug rehab when he melts down? Should the rest of us have to pay for his child support when he can't support his family? Should the rest of us have to pay for shelter when he loses his house? Should the rest of us have to pay for his family's medical care because he can't provide any?"

No to all.

"Quite frankly, it is precisely because Libertarians refuse to connect the dots from the onset of illegal behavior to its pernicious effects that convinces me that the LP is full of druggies and nutcases (not mutually exclusive)."

I understand how that line of reasoning can lead you to the conclusion that the party is full of nutcases, but I don't understand how it could lead you to the conclusion that it is full of druggies. However, I think that your "connect the dots" statement is unfounded, since this discussion is in the context of the LP platform. The platform does not support a yes response to any of the questions that you asked.

Here are the sections of the platform that address your questions:

Question 1:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

Questions 2 and 3:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/poveunem.html

Question 4:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/healcare.html

In regards to the "strawmen" charge, you want to limit the issue to "illicit drug use." However, similar to your concern about Libertarians failing to "connect the dots," I think that this issue is linked to other issues regarding a wide range of freedoms and you are failing to "connect the dots." If the reasoning that Lurking2Long applied in post 432 can be applied to the drugs that are currently illegal, then why can't they be applied to possession of other potentially harmful substances (or even substances not harmful)?

You dismissal of my questions as "strawmen" is a cop-out.

[seanc623]

In what way is it unconstitutional?

Our constitution requires a declaration of war from Congress to attack another country. In either of the two scenarios you mention you can be sure (like Iraq) that the Administration wouldn't even ask Congress for one.

[seanc623]

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

I appreciated the link but it didn't answer my question.

[seanc623]

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...

An internationalist is someone who sees the US Constitution as an obstacle to their glorious (and socialist) New World Order. That does not describe Libertarians. We want free trade, not "managed trade,". We want national sovereignty, not the entangling alliances so beloved by internationalists (NATO, etc.).

Isolationist is a term invented in the 1930s to describe someone who opposed our entry into World War II. It's often used lump together patriots with anti semites who sympathized with Hitler, so it isn't a valid term to describe Libertarians.

If you bother to read the LP Platform you will see that we are neither internationalists nor isolationists but rather Constitutionalists who don't owe our loyalty to socialists like the Bushes or Clintons. We actually believe that "inalienable rights," means what it says.

[Bush2000]

I appreciated the link but it didn't answer my question.

I'll tell you the story then. Back when our country was young, large square-rigged U.S. merchant vessels carrying trade goods traveled between ports in the Mediterranean and the Carribean and, finally, to our shores. During Jefferson's term as president, our ships were systematically attacked and plundered by the so-called Barbary Pirates operating out of Tripoli (current day Libya). When Jefferson sent people to investigate, he was delivered a message from the thug government at Tripoli (which was not only harboring the pirates but sponsoring them): Pay us a ransom or your ships will be plundered. Jefferson's response was to send U.S. warships to Tripoli and destroy them. U.S. Marines set ashore on the Barbary Coast, marched through the Sahara Desert, and liberated the Tripoli government from the hands of the pirates that had previously overthrown its benign monarch. If you've ever heard the Marine Corps Hymn, you will hear the words: "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..." That's where the reference to Tripoli comes from. Also, in return for liberating his people, the monarch presented one of the officers, Lt. O'Bannon, a mameluke sword, which is still carried by Marine Corps officers in homage to that battle.

So go on ... tell me how our Founders thought that our self-defense ended at our borders. Because I really find it amusing coming from people with such a woeful disregard for our long and vibrant history, when that history disproves their contentions.