Proposed new Libertarian party platform

http://www.reformthelp.org/ ^ | nick wilson

[timm22]

I referred to complicity, where you promote acceptance of the bad thing and maybe do the bad thing yourself, that is very Libertarian to me.I know many like to say that they talk favorably about the vice, but never participate, but that just makes them sound like bigger idiots IMO.

Where do you find anyone promoting acceptance of drugs or other vices? I don't believe any L/libertarians are saying you have to associate with, help, congratulate, or declare support for anyone. All that is being said is that practicing most vices shouldn't be a criminal offense.

[bmwcyle]

We're Conservatives not Libertarians.

[timm22]

I would vote for the pro-Roe Republican, because voting for the Libertarian is a sure way to put the Roe Worshipping Dem in power. With the RINO, you have the push of the party on him to vote against kid-killing. Even if he never votes to ban it, he'll vote for more restrictions.

That's a good and reasonable response.

And It was a morally evil policy that allowed the states to decide who was a person and who was a piece of livestock. Why is this argument any less wicked?

Morally speaking, it is about the same, which I mentioned in my initial post in this thread. Ideally, any state that permitted wide-scale murder in the form of abortion would be subject to intervention just as if they tried to reinstitute slavery.

Unfortunately, that is not the sitation we find ourselves in. We actually have a Federal government that forces states to permit abortion. The best we can manage are delaying tactics like parental notification or information laws.

If the issue were left to the states, we would see a quick, remarkable decline in abortion availability. At least thousands of human lives that would have been destroyed while we fought the issue at the Federal level would have a chance to live. We would still have a lot of convincing to do in pro-choice states, but we have that same burden now, only in Washington D.C. instead of Albany or Sacramento.

[A CA Guy]

But Libertarians seem to often post about what most consider vices like others would post of Sacraments.

I do think they have quite a presence that promotes Democrats and odd ball candidates and election time and quite a club of pro-recreational drug activist as well.

[Know your rights]

But Libertarians seem to often post about what most consider vices like others would post of Sacraments.

Bullsh*t. Quote three.

[Know your rights]

With the RINO, you have the push of the party on him to vote against kid-killing.

Where is the evidence that the GOP has ever successfully pushed a pro-abort RINO to cast a single pro-life vote?

[FrankR]

Heeeyyyyy man....hic...vote liberlaria, er...tan.....hic...youse shud legalese thuh drugs man....hic...peace bro....hic...

[DesScorp]

Libertarians are useless. They stand for nothing but anarchy and personal greed. I'm surprised these political Ferengi didn't have the Rules of Acquisition in their charter. Capitalism is useless without a strong moral fiber in society. Chuck that morality out the door, and Capitalism becomes all theft and lying and greed. Keep those rules in place and businessmen, buyers, and the country as a whole prospers.

Libertarians are for legalizing heroin, prostitution, and any other form of vice imaginable. And most have no become "pro-choice".

[Know your rights]

Heeeyyyyy man....hic...vote liberlaria, er...tan.....hic...youse shud legalese thuh drugs man....hic...peace bro....hic...

Hiccuping is what drunks do. Yes, the LP supports the legality of the drug alcohol; do you disagree with them on that?

[Know your rights]

Chuck that morality out the door, and Capitalism becomes all theft and lying and greed. Keep those rules in place and businessmen, buyers, and the country as a whole prospers.

Where is the evidence that morality is dependent on laws mandating moral behavior, or that such laws can bring about morality?

[ladyinred]

This looks like a dream world to me. I do agree with lots of it, but I hold out little hope of most of it being possible anymore. There are of course, some things I disagree with, but that is okay, since we are free people!

[FrankR]

Well, not being a druggie, I don't know what they do, but I see you get my drift...so, the hic worked.

Yes, I am vehemently against the LP's drug policies. I find a lot of things in their platforms that make sense, but the drug thing kills it for me, and many, many others...as their vote totals in all recent elections show.

It's a personal preference with me, so you feel free to post and boast all day about the LP, however, this is my last word on it...arguing with a libertarian is like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness...goes nowhere.

I guess the bottom line is, if the drug stance is killing the LP, and the LP knows the drug stance is killing them, they are not even smart enough to declare they renounce it (lie, even) to get a little closer to getting elected. You can't drive the team until you at least get in the wagon seat. I like me leaders to be smarter than that.

[Know your rights]

the drug thing kills it for me, and many, many others...as their vote totals in all recent elections show.

The vote totals don't even show that many disagree with ANY plank (it could well be simple lack of information) ... much less that many disagree with their drug plank.

[GregH]

Overturning the travesty of legal decision Roe means that the issue would be left to the States, this is what I believe the pro-life agenda is concentrating upon. The Libertarians by failing to take a stand on this issue or even wanting it to return to the states makes a mockery of their party platform and in fact it is basically a sophisticated version of the dem policy of individual choice. As for a pro-choice Repub getting elected, I really doubt it, Condis's candicacy is sinked based on that and dont think a pro-choice repub can motivate conservative voters to the election.

[ArrogantBustard]

Would you vote for the Constitution party in that situation?

Very likely yes. One of my friends is fairly active in the Const. Party for that reason. She would likely be a Libertarian otherwise.

[supercat]

The platform has much I can agree with, but there are several problems. One problem is that certain words like "victimless" are not well defined. For instance, is habitual drug use to be considered victimless because the primary consequences apply to the user, or does it really have victims, like children, spouses, neighbors, etc?

If someone is a victim, that means that they have suffered some direct and unjust harm which, if they know about it, they will consider objectionable. In general, if a person who is aware of a 'crime' against them is capable of complaining about it and does not do so, that would suggest that the person does not consider the action objectionable.

A major objection (IMHO the primary one) to the prosecution of "victimless" crimes is that such crimes require the police to be proactive in a manner not necessary for normal "victim" crimes. If a law is passed making it illegal to be drunk and disorderly in a public place in such manner as to cause annoyance, there's no need for police to invade anyone's privacy in an effort to enforce that law. If someone is drunk and disorderly in the presence of people who find it objectionable, they can complain to the police. If nobody finds the behavior objectionable, there's no crime and thus no need for the police to get involved.

By contrast, if a law is passed that forbids consuming a certain drug within one's own home, the only way the police can catch violators is by intruding into people's homes to look for them. This is a very different sort of policing, and one to which freedom-minded people should be opposed.

[halfthebattle118]

People make too much of an issue about legalizing drugs. I think the real issue is, it's not the government's place to put restrictions on personal destruction or personal freedoms. Drug use is a victimless crime. What makes it violent is the DEA and others making it a "war". Let people kill themselves if they want. Why should the government babysit us? I disagree with the open borders issue though. I guess I'm a conservative Libertarian.