Posted on 06/27/2006 10:55:08 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Antisocial deviant/criminal behavior is not considered liberties last I hear.
-- 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.
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.
"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?
That is not a problem associated with liberty. That is a problem associated with socialism.
"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.
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.
That kinda works - until the first enemy nuke hits. Then, the Liberteens scatter like roaches...
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.
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.
Many of you folks are obsessed by such a small movement. "Nothing to see here, move along."
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.