Ten Reasons to Vote for Libertarians

He should have gotten a declaration; the founders weren't perfect, but I believe they were more true to the document they wrote than many of our modern politicians (both parties).

Nonetheless, what Bush has done could hardly be called unconstitutional. He has sought the counsel of Congress on the issue of Iraq -- and he received their vote of confidence. Even if that weren't the case, the Constitution deems our president the "Commander-in-Chief" for a reason. A president doesn't only "become" the "Commander-in-Chief" when Congress tells him he can be. He's "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces all the time and regardless of what Congress says. As such, he has the moral obligation and authority to defend this country from aggression.

And what happens when the poor show up at emergency rooms and can't afford to pay for their care?

Well, we know how the Democrats and Republicans solve this problem: they hire people to point guns at the citizens and force them to pay up.

In a Christian/libertarian society, I believe that there would be more than enough people who would voluntarily take up the slack on these kinds of issues.

But since we're evidently not that kind of society, the Rs and the Ds feel justified in committing armed robbery.

Nonetheless, what Bush has done could hardly be called unconstitutional. He has sought the counsel of Congress on the issue of Iraq -- and he received their vote of confidence. Even if that weren't the case, the Constitution deems our president the "Commander-in-Chief" for a reason. A president doesn't only "become" the "Commander-in-Chief" when Congress tells him he can be. He's "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces all the time and regardless of what Congress says. As such, he has the moral obligation and authority to defend this country from aggression.

Your point is accurate at this time; he doesn't need a declaration of war yet since he hasn't attacked Iraq. I believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it represents an overstepping of bounds by (a Democrat) Congress.

Second, as a practical matter, do you expect that we have to wait for somebody to nuke us or use chemical weapons against us in order for us to act? Or does the Constitution provide the latitude to act preemptively to prevent our own destruction? I believe it's the latter. The Founders would have acted proactively, not reactively.

But using that logic what should we do about Communist China, Cuba, North Korea or any of the other dangerous tyrannies that harbor similar animosity towards us? Do you believe that Saddam is suicidal enough to attack us?

If they would get their heads down out of the clouds, stop making their sole aim a spoiler's role for Republicans, and participate in a meaningful way in our political system, they could fill the valuable role of acting as a counterweight toward our society's big-government tendencies. But Libertarians never seem interested in such practicalities.

I disagree; while some Libertarian are happy to play that role (as some Greens are with the Dems) most want to win converts, not punish one party or the other. Like Harry Browne and others I sell freedom and its benefits to people of all parties and are interested in converting as many people as we can to that cause. We want people of any party or no party.

Don't even get me started exposing the Libertarian platforms advocating child prostitution and numerous other social ills.

Our platform doesn't "advocate" child pornography, anymore that it "advocates" abortion or drug abuse. There is a world of difference between respecting people's freedom to choose and condoning the choices they make. Like many Libertarians I condemn and deplore all of those and many other social ills, but I realize the most effective way to combat them is through persuasion, not government coercion.

We Libertarians aren't your enemies; our common enemies are the leftists who have stolen our money and used it to brainwash a generation. Their self-righteous posturing about "tolerance" for everyone except conservative Christians and "inclusiveness" for everyone except limited government Republicans make me sick. I voted a straight Libertarian ticket on the 5th but I shed no tears for the lowlife Democrats when they lost the Senate.

If the Republicans have been seemingly too eager to compromise with the Dims of late, those who, by their "principled" votes sent more Dims to Washington are partly to blame...compromise would NOT be as necessary with a greater Republican majority. You who complain about "weak-spined" Republicans are, unfortunately, partly to blame.

I believe that the cause of freedom requires each of us to do what we believe will best advance it; you continue to support conservative, constitutionalist Republicans, fine. I won't judge you because I know your heart is in the right place and I would rather have Republicans and Libertarians as our 2 major parties anyway.

I think it's time for Libertarians and Republicans on this forum to agree to disagree without questioning each others' motives. I know there are many fine people in the GOP; I've even been privileged to meet some of them like Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Do I doubt for a moment that both of these gentleman are great patriots and dedicated public servants? Not for a minute. Can I say the same about their Democrat colleagues like Susan Davis and Bob Filner? No. They owe their loyalty to a party that is steeped in anti-American self hatred. They have no objection to being in the same party with frauds like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Those 2 clowns make even some RINOs look decent by comparison.

I will keep working to sell the benefits of the Libertarian vision to people from different parties but I will never forget this simple fact: I would rather live with a Bush presidency and a Republican Congress than the alternative. At least you can reason with Republicans.

But using that logic what should we do about Communist China, Cuba, North Korea or any of the other dangerous tyrannies that harbor similar animosity towards us?

Cuba doesn't pose a threat. China and North Korea do pose threats to us; however, the former has ballistic missiles that can reach our shores and the latter is well on the way to achieving that capability. If we were going to attack any of those countries preemptively, it would be North Korea. I'm not explicitly opposed to attacking North Korea but the result would be a resumption of hostilities between North and South Korea. Not a good thing. North Korea may be dangerous but it's not intent on dominating the entire Asian theatre as compared to Iraq in the Middle East.

Do you believe that Saddam is suicidal enough to attack us?

Saddam poses a multilateral threat. What that means is that he will likely use his arms production capabilities to support so-called "non-state actors" (aka terrorists) to attack us. These terrorists are not affiliated with any particular country (except Saudia Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen), which makes them much harder to target. So, while Saddam wouldn't be foolish enough to attack us directly, he will most certainly attack us through indirect means. But in order to recognize this threat, you have to think outside the box.

In a Christian/libertarian society, I believe that there would be more than enough people who would voluntarily take up the slack on these kinds of issues.

Unfortunately, charities are not capable of handling all of these problems since they don't enough voluntary funding. Quite obviously, cutting taxes equivalent donations to charity isn't working. We don't live in a generous society.

But since we're evidently not that kind of society, the Rs and the Ds feel justified in committing armed robbery.

It's reality. People are selfish. So cutting all social programs would result in a lot of people (especially the elderly and children) getting hurt. I know it sucks. I wish that people would simply be responsible and take care of their own problems. But we should know better: They won't. A certain percentage of them will continue to show up at emergency rooms with life-threatening medical issues -- and we have to decide what we're going to do. What would you do?

Posted by seanc623:
"Do you believe that Saddam is suicidal enough to attack us?"

While I agree that the possibility exists that Saddam may "use his arms production capabilities to support so-called 'non-state actors' (aka terrorists) to attack us," I think that it would be more likely that Saddam would focus on making Iraq a dominating force within the Middle East, rather than on screwing with us and, by default, our allies. Saddam is a power-hungry madman who heads a secular, authoritarian tyranny, whereas Al-Qaeda is simply a loose association of fanatical fascists who think that they are doing Allah's bidding against a foe whom they view as the infidel. Saddam can't control them, and I think that their goals are quite different, so he is less likely to deal with them, in my opinion. I think that if he were to acquire nukes, then he would continue the same type of aggression that he exhibited in the 80s and 90s - such as an invasion of Iran or Kuwait and extermination of the Kurds. His newfound weapon would likely be an effective deterrent against us coming to the rescue.

Posted by Bush2000:
"So cutting all social programs would result in a lot of people (especially the elderly and children) getting hurt."

Does this justify the government taking money out of our paychecks to fund social programs?

"I wish that people would simply be responsible and take care of their own problems. But we should know better: They won't."

So I have to?

I think that you fail to consider the effects that rolling back taxes would have on charitable contributions, the costs of health care, and the standard of living for all Americans. You pointed out that a rise in charitable contributions would not compensate for spending cuts (I think that is what you were saying). I do not believe that you looked deep enough into the issue. No, charitable contributions probably will not account for the spending cuts. However, 10 billion dollars of government social spending does not equate to 10 billion dollars of aid making its way to the poor. Waste and fraud account for much of this. For example, I do not know the current figure, but only a few years ago, I know that more than 70 percent of money spent on welfare was eaten up in administrative costs. That is insane. Consider, in addition to this, that there are people recieving welfare who do not need it. An extreme example of this would be one of those cases where a person with a 6 figure income goes to jail for fraudulently recieving welfare benefits. If an increase equal to 30 percent of current spending on welfare were to occur, to charity organizations that provide assistance to people currently on welfare, then what would be the loss of abolishing the welfare program?

In regards to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, I think that we would see health care costs sharply decline, in the absense of these programs, making health care more affordable. Also, with the reduction in taxes that would occur, the economy would improve and incomes would rise, making people more able to pay for the more affordable health care and to afford health insurance. Also, I think that people are more likely to forego blowing money at the malls, fast food restaurants, record stores and video stores and instead spend money on health insurance, if they suddenly realize that their government is not going to force me and you to pay for their health care.

Does this justify the government taking money out of our paychecks to fund social programs?

Here's my view. Some degree of socialism in our society is inevitable. Face it, there are a certain amount of screwups who either can't or won't help themselves. Example: Drug addicts, alcoholics. They create and leave all kinds of messes in their wake. Example: Divorced spouses, orphaned children. Some of these people lack the most basic human necessities such as food and shelter. The practical consequence is that we, as a society, are confronted with these people whether we like it or not -- at our emergency rooms, at our food banks, at our homeless shelters, at our churches, etc. We could theoretically turn our backs on them but that won't happen. When people arrive at the emergency room with a life-threatening medical condition, you don't refuse to treat them. It's simply not right. So that is my contention: A certain amount of socialism is the unavoidable consequence of a humane and compassionate society.

Does this justify the government taking money out of our paychecks to fund social programs?

Personally, I don't think so; however, I'm also a realist. If you were to withdraw all social services that are currently available to the indigent, disabled, orphans, etc, there simply wouldn't be enough charitable contribution to take their place. You can certainly make the assertion that, over time, people would give a greater percentage of their incomes to charity if they weren't taxed; however, the fact of the matter is that people can already give more to charity and simultaneously reduce their tax burden. But the average American doesn't give the maximum allowable charitable contribution under the law.

As an aside to the political wrangling in Alabama this week, one ray of sunshine! The Libbie's are off the ballot now in Bama!!! They didn't get enough votes to stay on!
Boo yeah!

Are we discussing ideal policy or are we just characterizing current policy? I think that some degree of socialism is nearly inevitable. My point is simply that it should not be. Obviously, my wishes will almost certainly never be realized within my lifetime. I agree with you that socialism exists in our country, but I think that to justify it is to justify allowing government to pick and choose which of our rights to recognize, on grounds that are arbitrary and subject to the greed and other vices of a nation of busy-bodies and sloths.

"... the fact of the matter is that people can already give more to charity and simultaneously reduce their tax burden. But the average American doesn't give the maximum allowable charitable contribution under the law."

I think that is an inadequate comparison for several reasons. 1) People are reluctant to claim deductions if they do not have adequate documentation to back it up; 2) Deductions for charitable contributions are fairly insignificant, since there is a limit on how much one can claim and it only reduces your taxable income, rather than your actual tax bill; 3) If people were relieved of FICA, income, and capital gains taxes, they would have far more disposable income to disperse. Rush Limbaugh gave the run down on the increases in charitable giving that resulted in the 80s, with the reduction in taxes and rise in income - it may be in his book, but I sold that long ago to pay for college (rather than seeking financial aid).

I think it is also worth noting that less people will need assistance from charities, if the nation were not so heavily taxed and economic prosperity were not stifled by our tax codes and regulations. What are your thoughts regarding my claims in post 472 that 1) it takes far less money in charitable contributions to accomplish what government accomplishes with its bloated budget and 2) in addition to greater efficiency and less waste, actual prices for services such as health care would decline, or at least not increase in cost quite so dramatically?

In response to my question asking if the resultant harm that would occur from cutting all social programs was justification for the government taking money out of our paychecks to fund social programs, you wrote "Personally, I don't think so; however, I'm also a realist."

What does justify it?

Are we discussing ideal policy or are we just characterizing current policy?

Both.

I think that to justify it is to justify allowing government to pick and choose which of our rights to recognize, on grounds that are arbitrary and subject to the greed and other vices of a nation of busy-bodies and sloths.

Since we agree that it's inevitable, we'll have to admit that the government will assume some form of responsibility for choosing.

1) People are reluctant to claim deductions if they do not have adequate documentation to back it up; 2) Deductions for charitable contributions are fairly insignificant, since there is a limit on how much one can claim and it only reduces your taxable income, rather than your actual tax bill; 3) If people were relieved of FICA, income, and capital gains taxes, they would have far more disposable income to disperse.

Reducing taxable iincome does reduce your tax burden. People are faced with the choice of either giving to charity or giving to the federal government. Most people choose the latter, for some odd reason. Personally, I always weigh the possibility of giving the maximum in charitable donations in order to benefit the private sector as much as possible.

I know it is after the election and I don't have a top 10 list for or against but I will share with you why I will not vote LP:

These are still signature issues.

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs
the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation

And these are some that I just cannot hold my nose and ignore:

We support the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military. Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons.
We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

Thanks for listening.