Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
Libertarians in Santa Barbara, California have scored a victory for freedom of association by helping to nullify a resolution that censured the local Boy Scouts chapter.
On November 14, county supervisors approved a statute forbidding the government from discriminating against private organizations -- even if that group has "incorrect membership requirements," said Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus.
"Even the U.S. Supreme Court had said the Boy Scouts have the right to associate, and make their own internal rules as they choose," he said. "If LPers could not lead in such a case as local government censuring the Boy Scouts, who would?"
The new statute invalidated a resolution adopted in March by a 3-2 vote, which censured the Boy Scouts for refusing to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters.
County commissioners said the Boy Scout's policy violated the country's anti-discrimination law. The censure would have allowed county officials to prevent Scouts from using local camp grounds, leasing property from the city, or passing out leaflets on school grounds.
However, the Boy Scouts of America said the gay lifestyle violated the organization's oath, which requires members to be "morally straight." It won a U.S Supreme court decision in June 2000, which affirmed its right to decide who could be a Boy Scout.
Bakhaus said Libertarians support the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements without government interference -- even if some Libertarians personally oppose those requirements.
"Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules."
After the commission passed its resolution in March, "libertarian sympathizer" Michael Warnken and local LP members collected 20,000 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to overturn it.
Libertarians helped drum up publicity for the campaign by sending letters to the editors of local papers, appearing at meetings and rallies, and speaking out on local television shows, said Bakhaus.
A number of conservative Republicans also joined the effort, which shows that small organizations "can't afford to be shy about having allies," he said.
"[Our LP affiliate is] too small to abolish taxation or achieve other radical reforms outright. We must first develop our clout by helping enforce the current good laws limiting government, while rallying better liberals and conservatives to uphold the best American traditions of freedom," he said.
However, the coalition ran into opposition from the county attorney's office, which filed a suit to stop the petitioning.
The attorney claimed the initiative language was "vague," and that only a statute or regulation -- not a resolution -- was subject to invalidation by initiative.
In response, activists changed the language of the measure meet state initiative requirements, and hired their own attorney to defend them from legal attacks, said Bakhaus.
With the initiative back on track and a large public turn-out at the commission's November meeting, county commissioners decided to nullify the anti-Boy Scout resolution, said Bakhaus.
"[It] was approved as law without a vote of the people, thanks in part to a large public showing -- but mostly by the fears of an electoral backlash if it went to a vote," he said.
Most importantly, Libertarians learned valuable lessons from the experience, said Bakhaus.
"The [Santa Barbara LP] learned that a countywide petition drive is not outside the bounds of doability," he said. "We also learned that a 1% investment ratio can be leveraged into victory, if that investment consists of extensive knowledge and experience about the intricacies of real politics."
That's true, but the effect is unintended.
Unsnswerd by him:
If the government should punish evil, shouldn't there be laws against taking false gods, adultry, and coveting thy neighbor.
What should be done about those evil homosexuals?
If some kid doesn't honor the parents should he be placed in juvenile hall or put on probation?
CJ does not understand that one can lead a moral life, but believe that the government should not punish each of his neighbor's sins.
Probably the worst part of his case is that he repeats the same lines on these threads without advancing his case or answering questions.
So what's yur beef? The principle that private associations have the right to choose their members has been upheld. Why isn't that good enough for you?
I advocate voluntary morality, self-discipline, and fear of God. I live it and I teach it to my children. My children and I could live very easily and well within a libertarian society. We will never see it because libertarians and socialists believe they can have liberty without religion and morality.
The problem with the libertarian vision of a good society is, they can't get there from where most libertarians are. They live a half-truth, which is the worst sort of lie.
-- Of course it would kevin.
-- But the true genius of our constitutional republic would be realised if it's basic libertarian principles were reinstated and honored by courts & government officials.
We would then have a society that worked, --- dispite immoral, undisciplined, irreligious people.
Self interest & fair treatment under minimal law work. Our nearly hundred year experiment in big brother government has not. - #32 posted by tpaine
People will be voluntarily moral, self-disciplined, and God-fearing or they will be ruled by tyrants or nannies. Government intrusion isn't something I seek. But it is an inevitable consequence of a society that believes it can live like hell but reside in paradise.
You simply deny reality. The first hundred years of our republic belies your conclusion. Are you claiming that the prohibition movements of the 1900's were brought on by the victorians of the late 1800's?
I advocate voluntary morality, self-discipline, and fear of God. I live it and I teach it to my children. My children and I could live very easily and well within a libertarian society. We will never see it because libertarians and socialists believe they can have liberty without religion and morality.
--- Not so. -- We can, if we simply enforce our original constitutional concept. -- It has been corrupted by a prohibitionist big brother socialism. Which you support. Can you say it isn't so?
The problem with the libertarian vision of a good society is, they can't get there from where most libertarians are. They live a half-truth, which is the worst sort of lie.
-- Unsupported hogwash. You hate libertarianism, - and cloak your hate with specious generalizations.
You got that right.
Of course, the language is inflammatory, but the concept is correct. Why is one set of rights fundamentally more important to our liberal legislators than another?
Shalom.
Strange group he leads here on FR. -- Their agenda clearly is anti-constitutional on indivdual freedoms.
So if the "county commissioners" and "99.9% of the electorate" of your town decide that this years gay pride meeting will be held in the basement of your church, you fully support that. After all, people have a right to decide what type of community they want to live in.
Just clarifying your position.
EODGUY
It is clear that no single individual should ever be given the right to determine society--mentioning Stalin's Russia or the Third Reich should suffice to make this point. The question is rather: should a majority be given the right to set the rules for a minority?
The Libertarians argue that this would have--is having--dangerous consequences. Four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, as somebody wrote on another thread.
I do completely agree with this reasoning. Rules set by a majority may hurt minorities, including myself. So what alternatives do we have?
The Libertarians propose a simple set of unambiguous rules which, as they claim, would maximize individual liberty. Fine, I say, let's do it! Do it ... but how? The Democrats in Congress would never agree to it, so we'd have to follow the recipe outlined in the Declaration of Independence, and overthrow the Government.
Can we do that? It depends on who is stronger. God created our world so that the fittest will survive--so, in the end, the rules are set by those who are the fittest and strongest. God gave the strongest the right to set the rules, and no man can take it away from them.
The wolves will eat the sheep, unless the sheep has a gun. Or a brain. Or an ally. Or, most preferably, all three.
This should suit everyone, as long as you intend to work hard, use your brain, make friends, maximize your wealth by doing honorable business, and strengthen your will by having a good relationship with the Lord. These are the things that Conservatives do. These are the things that have made America the strongest nation on Earth--and, if we keep on with our determination, these are the things that will make Conservatives the strongest group within America. And we don't apologize.
The lack of answers to it stuck out like a sore thumb. I noticed the anti-libertarians ran from that question like rats from a sinking ship.
So, am I to understand that you agree with us in prinicple, but not in practice, because liberals wouldn't agree to go along with it?
The point I was trying to make was that you need to be strong in order to win. A principle is only worth anything if it's practicable, and the only principles that are practicable are those of the winners. I was saying that, in my opinion, Conservatives are the most likely to be the ultimate winners. This opinion is based on the fact of the United States having become the strongest nation in the world by adhering to Conservative principles.
Liberals have won ground because they promise the weak to protect them. We need to win this ground back by revealing the Libs for the frauds they are. It will be an uphill battle, as they have gained control of most of the media.
It's an interesting experience to go back to reading "conventional media" after reading FR. Especially after reading threads about Libertarianism. Everyone agrees about the need for limited government, for minimizing taxes, and so on--no matter which side you are on. After this, listening to a Liberal seems like listening to a radical idiot. Not only seems, is, but to non-Freepers, it sounds like mainstream opinion. Perhaps it would be a good idea to take this Libertarian-Conservative debate out to the popular media?
I know how it feels, but you should remember they think the same thing when they hear us.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to take this Libertarian-Conservative debate out to the popular media?
It doesn't suit their agenda. They reject the basic premise of the debate (the need for limited government, for minimizing taxes, and so on). Even airing the debate would undermine their goals. So we have to find our own media outlet.
Hence, the forum we're on right now.
-------------------------------
By fighting to restore the constitution, as per it's original intent.
-- Read the first section of the 14th amendment. - Investigate why it was passed.
It was intended to restore the balance of power tween fed & state to maximize individual liberty. It has been ignored, just as much of the rest of our constitution is being subverted by both parties.
This site is dedicated to constitutional restoration, yet most here are unable to see that party politics are directly contrary to that goal.
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.