This is the basic tenet by which other libertarian ideals originate. I do not envision a circumstance where I support someone initiating force against another.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Okay, here goes.CJD wrote:May I ask which points in particular you don't like?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Pretty much everything. Libertarians love to promote only two or three of the Libertarian Party's Platform planks like gun rights and smaller government. The vast majority of its Platform is either dangerously naive or outright crazy.CJD wrote:canvasbck wrote:. . . it's hard to NOT be a card carrying Libertarian. . . . What's not to like?
https://www.lp.org/platform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Chas.
- 1.0 Personal Liberty
No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. [Unworkable, naïve and dangerous.]
Portugal legalized all drugs, and has since seen a decrease in usage and drug related deaths:Charles L. Cotton wrote: 1.1 Self-Ownership
Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. [Dangerously naive approach that has proven devastating throughout history.]
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years ... -happening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sharia law would necessarily "aid" the Muslim religion.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 1.2 Expression and Communication
We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. [So no laws against Sharia Law.]
This is an example of where since someone does not like something or believes something, they believe others should have to follow suit. I do not believe religion belongs in government, and no one should be forced to live under the religion of another. Similar to your Sharia law example, would you want Christians to be forced to live under this?Charles L. Cotton wrote: 1.4 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. [Yes, the government most certainly does and every government in recorded history has enacted such regulations. “Anything goes” does not create a country or environment any normal person wants to live in and raise their children. While LP anarchists don't want God in government, most Americans do.]
This is not as cut and dry as who supports murder or not. The issue of abortion does not stem from differences in morality, but different personal definitions of when a person becomes "alive." Not everyone shares the same opinion, but that does not mean that people who have the opposing opinion are evil. There are libertarians on both sides of the issue, but the main point is that the government should not be involved in defining this for others, nor should any person's opinion be forced on others. This issue is particularly deep, with many facets on either side, but I do not wish to go into which side or the other I believe because it is irrelevant.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. [So much for personal freedom! The LP doesn’t even want laws protecting the most vulnerable from being murdered. Why stop at the unborn, LP? Why not allow the killing of anyone under the age of majority?]
I don't know the official party platform, but I know many libertarians see them as such. Firstly, the intoxication limit is arbitrarily defined. Putting someone in jail because they are past this arbitrary limit, and "might" hurt someone, is reminiscent of pre-crime, and reminds me of anti-gunners who want to ban guns because someone "might" commit a crime. A main point of libertarianism is for there to be a crime, there must be a victim. If someone drives after drinking, but hurts no one, then from a libertarian perspective they have done nothing wrong. As soon as they are reckless enough to cause someone else harm, then the full force of law should come down on them. And, perhaps, not letting them straight back onto the road, as often happens now, might prevent this person from racking up multiple instances of the same crime. Each person should be responsible for their own actions, and if these actions infringe upon others, then they should be punished. As for fire codes, etc, the people in charge of buildings and elevators would be held criminally and civilly liable if they are reckless in regards to fire or elevator safety.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 1.6 Crime and Justice
such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. [So, are DWI laws “unjust” in the eyes of the LP? How about fire codes, building codes, elevator codes, etc.?]
I will say I am not informed enough on this topic to answer your concerns.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2.0 Economic Liberty
or to control or manage trade[So no laws dealing with foreign trade. Any country an embargo or tax American goods, but the U.S. government cannot respond to protect American manufacturers or merchants.]
So you're asking, if your neighbor is living in a way that you don't agree with, you can't force him to live how you prefer? No, libertarianism doesn't support forcing opinions on others.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2.1 Property and Contract
Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. [ Presumably no HOA rules or deed covenants either, so my neighbor can live in a rat-infested pig pen and I can’t do anything about it.]
Again, I am not informed enough on this topic to weigh in.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2.2 Environment
Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources.. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. [This section is pretty much babbling with any substance. However, the highlighted sentences were proven wrong in the early days of the oil industry throughout the country. Nothing changed until the government stepped in.]
It doesn't say no taxes, it says no income tax. The US did fine before income taxes were established in 1913. I can see, however, how the LP probably also disagrees with tariffs, and acknowledge that the combination of these 2 is unworkable.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2.4 Government Finance and Spending
We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. [Interesting. No taxes, therefore no revenue, but a balanced budget? The military is to protect us, but there will be no funds to support military forces.]
Free markets generally result in an equilibrium with maximum market efficiency and total surplus.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2.8 Education
we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. [More meaningless babble. It means no public education which is so ludicrous that only someone smoking hash could come up with this garbage.]
This again simply stems from the government not forcing people to do things they do not want to do. Someone should not be forced to invest, the same as they should not be forced to buy health insurance.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2.10 Retirement and Income Security
We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. [Read just a few history books and this delusion is quickly dispelled.]
I can understand both sides of this, but I agree we are not the policemen of the world. At least a toning-down is in order.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 3.1 National Defense
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. [Perhaps the LP doesn’t realize this is not the 18th century. No U.S. troops, facilities, aircraft or ships outside the U.S. That’s national suicide.]
I can see how this would cause problems.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have. [No classified information? Why have an intelligence agency if everything must be published.]
I think a major issue in this is using tax dollars to give to other countries. This forces people who do not support certain ideas (supporting Israel for example) to pay for it anyway.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 3.3 International Affairs
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. [These people are flat out crazy! So no alliances, no defense of Israel or any other critical partner.]
The only thing I can say to this is that, again, free markets generally come to equilibrium with the maximum net surplus.Charles L. Cotton wrote: 3.4 Free Trade and Migration
Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. [More lunacy! Open the borders to people and money. Only recently did the LP add the last sentence about keeping out dangerous people, according to their other policies and 3.4, would be impossible.]
[/list]
I think most of the people are actually just Republicans.Charles L. Cotton wrote: When people take the time to read and learn what the Libertarian Party really is and what it advocates, they run from it like the plague.
Even though I do not agree with you on a lot of these issues, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you spent to tell me your side of it. This was very thought provoking. Now back to HB910!
I think, though, that even though it is an idealistic impossibility, it's still, for the most part, the right direction to aim.