Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proposed new Libertarian party platform
http://www.reformthelp.org/ ^ | nick wilson

Posted on 06/27/2006 10:55:08 AM PDT by freepatriot32

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-197 next last
To: tpaine

Antisocial deviant/criminal behavior is not considered liberties last I hear.


101 posted on 06/27/2006 5:27:07 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Ever occur to you that our Constitution protects liberty by ignoring what bluenoses like to call 'vice'?

-- Get over the idea that you have the power to control your neighbors 'sins', JC..
-- You never have - and you never will. Not in the USA.

How about it, tpaine. Let's have a libertarian government but place you under the gurdianship of the state along with the rest of the weak-minded and dissolute.

A "guardianship of the state" is not compatible with a our Constitutional/libertarian/republican form of government JC... You must have been listening to some weak-minded liberals to dream that one up.

102 posted on 06/27/2006 5:27:26 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal
Did any of you notice that this is not the “Official” Libertarian platform but from an org named The Libertarian Reform Caucus?

The Libertarian Reform Caucus is to the Libertarian Party what the Republican Liberty Caucus is to the Republican Party. This is a movement by Libertarians to move the Libertarian Party forward, and they are a growing threat to the statist RP and DP. Check out their webpage: Libertarian Reform Caucus
.
103 posted on 06/27/2006 7:20:58 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

I visited the website before I posted so I already figured that out. But it seemed to me that many posters assumed this was the official Libertarian Party platform.

I have to say I found no major fault with the proposed platform, agreeing with a lot of it and I hope they (The Libertarian Reform Caucus are successful.

The Libertarian Party is potentially the most viable third party alternative IMHO, but only if they only can adopt a cohesive platform and message and appeal to more of the mainstream without abandoning libertarian principals.


104 posted on 06/27/2006 7:33:55 PM PDT by Caramelgal (There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"We should stop using the military to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. The glaring exception would be necessary action to prevent mass genocides where no other force can reasonably prevent it."

Who defines what an 'internal affair' is? Mass genocide in country X would qualify to a lot of folks as that country's own affair. And if that mass genocide exception is allowed (for purposes unstated, I might add), why should America intervene to protect other countries' people and NOT be allowed to intervene for our own country's purposes?


105 posted on 06/27/2006 7:44:45 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile ('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
we also can't declare a free-for-all on crack, meth, heroin, etc. while we still have piles of laws forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for all the users' "treatment" and "disability" and "homelessness", etc.

That is not a problem associated with liberty. That is a problem associated with socialism.

106 posted on 06/27/2006 7:49:10 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kidd

"This would change the Libertarian platform from being wobbly on abortion to being firmly on the fence on abortion. In essence this is a pro-abortion position - if this platform recognized that abortion is murder then it would be firmly against abortion on the basis that there is extreme harm to another human...without consequences to the aggressor. This is a central theme to libertarianism."

It's also a position that would allow for the overturn of Roe, which many libertarians are against, and yet allow states to choose their own way on abortion, which many libertarians are for.

Of course, that isn't what some prolife folks think Roe does, that reversing Roe will result in the immediate ban of abortion nationwide. Even THEY have fallen for the left's propaganda about Roe.


107 posted on 06/27/2006 7:52:03 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile ('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Hey, the liberatarians might get 3/4% of the popular vote this time round.

Does that have anything to do with the platform which has been posted for discussion?

Yes it does, but 3/4% is way too high.

108 posted on 06/27/2006 7:59:59 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

That kinda works - until the first enemy nuke hits. Then, the Liberteens scatter like roaches...

109 posted on 06/27/2006 8:01:35 PM PDT by Libloather (They can't privatize Social Security but they can find a way to give it to illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal
I visited the website before I posted so I already figured that out
Check out the Neo-Libertarian movement, if you haven't already.

But it seemed to me that many posters assumed this was the official Libertarian Party platform.
I don't think the Libertarian Reform Caucus has finished voting on the new platform yet, but what you read here will pretty much be the platform of the Libertarian Party after the convention.

The Libertarian Party is changing as more Conservatives leave the RP for the LP. I think we may see LP candidates garnering votes in the 20% range in 2008. That would make the Libertarian Party the third party and a defeat of the DP and RP stranglehold on government a very real possibility.

The majority of eligible voters in America don't vote. They see no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. The independents vote for the lesser of two evils. The time is ripe for a populist Libertarian movement.
.
110 posted on 06/27/2006 8:13:26 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy; tpaine
Because only the ACLU seems to come close to pushing various vices like the Libertarian does.

Let me school you, grasshopper...there is a huge difference between advocating an action and permitting an action.

I won't encourage you to fullfill all your lurid fantasies but as long as you are with consenting adults in private I won't interfere or encourage government interferenece.

I don't have to advocate gambling to 'allow' others to gamble; I don't have to advocate tobacco or recreational drug use to 'allow' others to do so; I don't have to 'advocate' porn to allow you to look at it; and I don't advocate idiotic opinions yet feel no complelling need to stop yours.

The LP does not "push" pornography, drug use, homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, or any other vice even though you falsely claim that is does.

Me? I don't feel the need to use the state to protect people from themselves and to prevent them from doing things that I don't like.

You do.

111 posted on 06/28/2006 5:52:00 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
The subject is the platform, not the popularity of the party or their electoral record. They are one and the same.

No they aren't. The real subject is the authors proposals.

The way opponents change the subject is to talk about electoral percentages.

Some fall for it, Oh well.

112 posted on 06/28/2006 6:13:59 AM PDT by Protagoras (("Minimum-wage laws are one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of racists." - Walter Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
If the count totals are so small and your inability to talk about ideas equally small, why are you on the thread?

Many of you folks are obsessed by such a small movement. "Nothing to see here, move along."

113 posted on 06/28/2006 6:17:03 AM PDT by Protagoras (("Minimum-wage laws are one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of racists." - Walter Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy; freepatriot32; tpaine; OrthodoxPresbyterian; A.J.Armitage
Like President Lincoln said, the Constitution was never meant to be a death pact.

Which is why many people, not JUST Libertarians think that Lincoln was a statist idiot...(we won't at this writing discuss the fact that many of his actions were later declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS).

OF COURSE the Constitution was and is a "suicide pact". Our founders stated and demonstrated that:



To believe otherwise is just ignorance of history.

So IMO when crazy, dangerous and criminal behavior happens (which you refer to as your LIBERTIES, vice, drugs and so on), you are restrained from damage that can be done by such activities to others in the name of so called FREEDOM which in many cases seems like irresponsible anarchy.

Your use of the word "criminal" is an arbitrary standard that one uses to make otherwise "law abiding" citizens into criminals simply because an individual or group decides that they don't like the particular activity in question, and uses the force of government to, WITHOUT DEMONSTRATED HARM TO THE LIVES, PROPERTY, OR LIBERTY OF ANYONE ELSE remove that freedom.

As for the rest of your self-admitted opinion, these matters are more properly disposed of by the CIVIL courts where harm should be demonstrated by the individual making the charges, and should not be a matter of statuatory regulation.

114 posted on 06/28/2006 8:49:09 AM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Yes, the movement is tiny, but the noise made by it on the internet is exponentially amplified.

If I want to entertain myself with the utter failure of Libertarians to accomplish anything noteworthy, while taking themselves so seriously, I will do so.

115 posted on 06/28/2006 8:51:04 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
If I want to entertain myself

I have seen lots of your posts, it's clear that you "entertain" yourself often. There is a word for it.

with the utter failure of Libertarians to accomplish anything noteworthy,

They have accomplish plenty, for instance, they get goofy people to go crazy on the net, veins popping and eyes bugging out over the mere thought of freedom. LOL

116 posted on 06/28/2006 8:55:26 AM PDT by Protagoras (("Minimum-wage laws are one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of racists." - Walter Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

If freedom and anti-social behavior were the same thing you would have a point. My eyes are bugging out because I'm laughing so hard. The Libertarians should leave politics for comedy, then they wouldn't have to deliver pizzas to pay the bills.


117 posted on 06/28/2006 9:37:12 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
The Libertarian Party is changing as more Conservatives leave the RP for the LP.

Where are you getting your information? It seems to me that especially since the Badnarik mistake, more libertarians are leaving the LP for the RLC than the other way around. Note that "leaving" would be interpreted loosely, regardless of the direction of the shift. Inherent in being a libertarian is an individualism that eschews blind loyalty to a "group". Thus individual libertarians are as a matter of convenience alligned with a party for a period of time.

The LP has at least 3 challenges.
1. It (its remaining members) compromise on some ideological points to build a coalition but not on other ideological points that would also enhance the coalition into a more viable/larger group. This makes the debate over purity vs compromise absurd.
2. It lacks leaders of the quality of Hosper, Paul, Clark. Harry Browne and then Badnarik were not leaders who would attract a broad base. This proves that "leadership" as exhibited by non-ideological types like Guiliani, Rumsfeld, etc does make a different, despite what us ideological types would like to pretend otherwise.
3. Any 3d party must build on the negative feelings toward the major parties. Despite all the non-libertarian and non-conservative activity of the GOP President and GOP Congress, the LP has had no vision to attract those of us unhappy with the "spend and borrow" policy of Frist-Hastert. Likewise with other opportunities blown.

The LP has also failed to exploit the mistakes of the Democrat party. The Moveon/Deaniac crazies have taken over the Democrat party and left many sane Democrats without a party. There is no way the LP could outflank the Democrat crazies and be more wacko. But that is what some LP types have tried to do. Witness the absurd cries of "Bush lied". To this day, I have yet to hear a specific quote in quotation marks of a Bush statement on terrorism or Iraq that is a lie. (Bush did lie about Katrina.) Yet some LP types continue to try to outdo the Democrats in going wacko.

118 posted on 06/28/2006 10:37:53 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
Where are you getting your information?

Just personal observation. As they saying goes, 'all politics are local'. I registered Republican in 1963 and voted the party line through 2004. I am no longer a Republican.

I live in an area (rural) that has traditionally been Republican. The LP had no members here 10 years ago. The majority are now Libertarian with just a handful of Republicans left.

The California primary had the lowest voter turnout in California history. Republicans didn't show up to vote. The same thing happened in Utah.

On the national side, the neo-libertarian movement is made up of young successful conservatives that is growing fast and changing the Libertarian Party...for the better.
The majority of elligible voters, especially the young, do not vote. They see no difference between the DP and RP. Independents are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. The LP is the only other option.

.
119 posted on 06/28/2006 11:09:16 AM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam; Moose4
Not really. Those sentences are in the "we support:" section. Thus, the sentences describe the laws that they support.

The previous sentence refers to the LP's support for the repeal of various weapon-control laws. And thus it would appear that the LP also supports the repeal of laws governing "the private use and ownership of primarily offensive weapons such as bombs, deadly chemical weapons and military devices such as missile launchers and nuclear weapons."

It is not clear to me that one can "privately use" a nuclear weapon, but the context suggests that the LP supports private use of WMDs.

Fear not, however, as the LP also supports "the revocation of arms rights from those who are convicted of commission or the involvement with the commission of violent crimes."

Which is to say, if one were to pop off a nuke just for the hell of it, and did not have a prior conviction, they'd see nothing wrong with it.....

The man's correct, OBB -- that little line needs some clarification.

120 posted on 06/28/2006 11:17:15 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-197 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson