Posted on 06/27/2006 10:55:08 AM PDT by freepatriot32
An intelligent response.
Party leaders are not as ideologically "pure" as you would like to believe. They are politicos just as much as John McCain is.
Yes. It does. Thanks for checking.
O come on, have a little fun.
"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?"
Sounds good to me.
Then we can talk about ending the Internal Revenue Service also.
Very well done.
My only initial problem with it is a lack of a firm stated commitment, - in the preamble, - to our US Constitutions principles..
Suggestions:
(1) "Sexual rights" isn't in the Constitution. "Consensual activity between adults" should be listed under the "privacy issues" section. As is, it just sounds very iffy on the issue of traditional marriage. Not sure where this version of the LP platform stands on that issue. Do they want to drop marriage from the legal lexicon altogether? Or do they want to alter the definition of marriage to include anything goes?
(2) Under "Education", I don't see what I thought was the LP's position - to eliminate state-run public schooling altogether and allow the free market to take over. As is, it sounds like they favor some kind of school voucher system.
A third suggestion:
(3) Under "abortion", the platform should favor "state's rights" to regulate it, but still be against the state or federal funding or mandating of it, etc.
In the first instance, most sensible Americans are opposed to the decriminalization of drugs that are currently illegal.
Your opinion is noted, and discarded.
The problem is in the foreign and security section. Based on the stance of the last Libertarian candidate for President, I wanted to edit the preamble - for every statement they make about people's rights I thought they should add "except in Iraq", where they apparently don't support freedom at all.
The foreign and security section written here is entirely unexceptional. That is the problem. NO-ONE could take exception to it. They only want to use the military when they really, really have to. So does Donald Rumsfeld. So does Ted Kennedy.
Guidance, please, guys. When is it necessary?
No it doesn't, but thanks for trying to dumb the discussion down.
Yep. The GovernmentShrinker platform has a plan for that too. Make states pay a flat rate per congressional representative from their state, which approximates each state's share of the population. Then let the states decide how to raise the funds. This would create huge pressure to reduce the federal tax burden, and would also set off a much needed competition between states to find the best way to assess and collect taxes without causing their most productive citizens to flee the state in droves (and while attracting productive citizens who are fleeing other states).
In lieu of any intelligent discourse on the topic, let's have fun? No thanks, if I want to have fun I'll go play golf.
If a libertarian doesn't marginalize himself by labeling himself a Libertarian, he has a fairly good chance of winning office -- probably as a Republican. If all the registered Libertarians vote for him, he may get 1% of the vote -- and I'm presuming that the larger objective is to see the triumph and fulfillment of their ideas -- rather than that they just like to hear themselves talk, so that they can be like the lib/left/Dems who enjoy their presumed moral and intellectual superiority in these matters, while talking to no one.
Would you like my full treatise on the Libertarian party and this platform?
I would gladly give it to you, despite the parties irrelevance, if you so desire.
Then you and I could argue about the fine points of the war on drugs, defense policy, abortion law, illegal immigration and the 10th amendment.
My guess is you would rather bite my ankles.
It almost reads like a "same great taste, now less filling" version of the existing platform. It's a good idea to recognize that one can't create a totally libertarian nation overnight, and to refocus the platform on shrinking government and increasing personal freedom rather than demanding an ideologically pure (but totally impractical and unpopular) overnight elimination of government.
It's also nice to see a more realistic view of foreign policy, which is where the LP lost me after 9/11. Libertarian ideals on national security, open borders, and foreign policy only work if every other country is also libertarian. This new platform is a much more realistic, workable, and popular one, and is again much better than demanding an ideologically pure but totally unworkable "open-world" policy. I hope this platform is adopted. There's little to object to and much to be gained by moderating the immediate goals in order to attract the uninformed and misinformed, as well as to bring back all those like me who were lost when the LP went off the foreign policy deep end after 9/11.
...then they'd have uniforms? That'd be a hoot.
"The subject is the platform, not the popularity of the party or their electoral record.
In the first instance, most sensible Americans are opposed to the decriminalization of drugs that are currently illegal.
Your opinion is noted, and discarded."
Goody, it's nice to see you post on topic for a change.
Your ending statement, however, is one of the reasons the LP can't muster any real percentage of the vote.
I have no connection to any political party.
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.