The Libertarian Party Thread

[stimmerman]

"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."

(Source: The Libertarian Party: A Short History, 2000)



I find myself agreeing with the platform of the Libertarian Party. The support of a free market economy and the protection of civil liberties; the best parts of the Democratic and Republican Parties, IMO. A smaller, less invasive government with an emphasis on the citizen’s personal responsibility.

The current two party political system has a way of polarizing Americans to one side of the fence or the other, when often times these citizens have views that cross those party lines. I find that a lot of the people I talk to share many of the views of the Libertarian Party and don’t even know it.

As we’ve seen this year the two major parties of current American politics has grown extremely vicious and seemingly at war with one another. I think a major third party is important to for the future of the American political system. While it may not quell the polarization and viciousness, it is a step forward in tempering those aspects. It will also give to those Americans who feel unrepresented a greater voice and a greater choice.

Check out their website to see if any of your views fall in line with the Libertarian Party.

http://www.lp.org/issues/

Feel free to discuss (like that needs to be said).

[mmazz72]

:thumbsup i agree with everything you've said, and have always agreed with everything the Libertarian party stands for.

[bluwaterbaboon]

who is the libertarian candidate this election? and wouldn't any vote he (or she) gets just be like a vote for nadar (going nowhere and just keeping bush in office)

[stimmerman]

and wouldn't any vote he (or she) gets just be like a vote for nadar (going nowhere and just keeping bush in office)
That depends on whether the candidate you want to win is leading your state in the polls come election time. For instance, I want Kerry to win. I live in Washington state. There is a fairly good chance Kerry will take Washington come November. If the polls are reflecting this then I will most likely use my vote to support the Libertarian Party. In these early stages of development for this third party no one is expecting them to win, but the better numbers they get the more recognition they'll get.

I realize if mass amounts of people did this it could swing an election one way or the other, depending on your candidate of choice. But polls show that this won't happen.

[bluwaterbaboon]

polls lie my friend (and they're really innacurate based on who they poll and where)

[stimmerman]

Well close ones do, but large spreads are a safe bet.

[mdude85]

the problem with libertarian issues is that they all need a large amount of government intervention and funding to be able to work, which is inherently against the libertarian platform.

take for instance the libertarian stance on crime ... "create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education." ha. this is easier said than done. who is going to create jobs? private industry? who is going to end welfare? america's telecom corporations? I don't think so. And the best one: "Double the police resources available for crime." The only way to do this is to raise taxes. But we all know the slogan of the libertarian party: Working to slash your taxes!!

Can I get a comment from the libertarians please?

[DMBSignGuy]

libertarians have some good ideas and some i dont agree with, but either way heres hoping they split the republican party. theyve taken my republican roomates vote, and now they're comming for yours :evil

[pichtd]

I find myself agreeing with the Libertarian party on most issues. Being in Texas I will be voting Libertarian (Badnarik) this election. Bush will win Texas and is my preference between him and Kerry.

The thing with voting for a third party is the many benefits that can come from it. One of these is automatic placement on the ballot the next election, which can save the party money. Another is that the major parties will take notice and shift their stances to get these votes.

[mdude85]

So basically you are part of the Libertarian party so as not to be part of another party? You not voting at all is the same thing as you taking votes away from another party and giving them to the Libertarian party. Also, can I please get some answers to my questions from the libertarians?

[cyberhound]

the problem with libertarian issues is that they all need a large amount of government intervention and funding to be able to work, which is inherently against the libertarian platform.

take for instance the libertarian stance on crime ... "create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education." ha. this is easier said than done. who is going to create jobs? private industry? who is going to end welfare? america's telecom corporations? I don't think so. And the best one: "Double the police resources available for crime." The only way to do this is to raise taxes. But we all know the slogan of the libertarian party: Working to slash your taxes!!

Can I get a comment from the libertarians please?
The police are a part of the function of government. Creating jobs, providing welfare, educating people are not among the functions of the federal government. Some may argue that they can be made so, but doing so violates individual rights and thus violates one of the two principle things the constitution provides for.

[JsinGood]

The police are a part of the function of government. Creating jobs, providing welfare, educating people are not among the functions of the federal government.

Are or are not are simply choices of the majority of the people. If it works, and serves the greater good, then do it.

[cyberhound]

Are or are not are simply choices of the majority of the people. If it works, and serves the greater good, then do it.
We are not, and should not be a democracy. Individual rights and the rule of law should always trump the choices of the majority. And just how have such things truly served the greater good? In practice mind you, not theory.

[mdude85]

The police are a part of the function of government. Creating jobs, providing welfare, educating people are not among the functions of the federal government. Some may argue that they can be made so, but doing so violates individual rights and thus violates one of the two principle things the constitution provides for.

How do the libertarians plan to double police activity (a government function) and decrease government influence at the same time?

[mdude85]

We are not, and should not be a democracy. Individual rights and the rule of law should always trump the choices of the majority. And just how have such things truly served the greater good? In practice mind you, not theory.

We are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. If you don't think we should be a democracy, what do you think we should be?

[DMBSignGuy]

We are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. If you don't think we should be a democracy, what do you think we should be?

we're a repubilc, cyberhound had it right with his previous post.

[cyberhound]

How do the libertarians plan to double police activity (a government function) and decrease government influence at the same time?
Police activity and government influence are not mutually inclusive. One of the functions of government is to protect you and your individual rights from force and fraud. Doing so does not mean having influence over you.

[mdude85]

Police activity and government influence are not mutually inclusive. One of the functions of government is to protect you and your individual rights from force and fraud. Doing so does not mean having influence over you.

Of course they are. Doubling police activity doubles the influence the government has on its citizens, whether it theoretically is supposed to or not.

[mdude85]

we're a repubilc, cyberhound had it right with his previous post.

And how does this not make it a democracy?

[cyberhound]

Of course they are. Doubling police activity doubles the influence the government has on its citizens, whether it theoretically is supposed to or not.
How so?

[cyberhound]

And how does this not make it a democracy?
Democracy is majority rule. Our government was not meant to be a democracy, nor was it set up that way. In fact if you read the writings of the founders, they abhorred democracy. We are a constitutional republic. The rule of law trumps the will of the people. The power of government and the will of the people is limited by the constitution especially when it comes to the rights of individuals. I will cede this point, we have been slouching steadily towards democracy over the last century and it is a dangerous thing.

[mdude85]

How so?

if the government has control over the police force, it has control over which areas to patrol, control over whether or not to conduct screenings at airports and traffic stops, whether or not to enforce seat belt laws, whether or not to put inmates on death row and/or execute them, whether or not they should use tax dollars or government funds to build more prisons, especially in suburban areas or next to schools, make decisions to cut police forces in your town and increase police forces in the next town over, or whether or not to use racial profiling when searching for criminals. All of these, including tons of others, are ways the government can have an extreme degree of influence over individuals' lives if you let them control the police force on a federal level.

[mdude85]

Democracy is majority rule. Our government was not meant to be a democracy, nor was it set up that way. In fact if you read the writings of the founders, they abhorred democracy. We are a constitutional republic. The rule of law trumps the will of the people. The power of government and the will of the people is limited by the constitution especially when it comes to the rights of individuals. I will cede this point, we have been slouching steadily towards democracy over the last century and it is a dangerous thing.

read up on the idea of representative democracy. it's what this country is.

Republic and democracy. They are practically the same. But to make the comment that we are not a democracy, is wholely false. And, if anything, we are moving away from a democracy, not toward it.

[cyberhound]

if the government has control over the police force, it has control over which areas to patrol, control over whether or not to conduct screenings at airports and traffic stops, whether or not to enforce seat belt laws, whether or not to put inmates on death row and/or execute them, whether or not they should use tax dollars or government funds to build more prisons, especially in suburban areas or next to schools, make decisions to cut police forces in your town and increase police forces in the next town over, or whether or not to use racial profiling when searching for criminals. All of these, including tons of others, are ways the government can have an extreme degree of influence over individuals' lives if you let them control the police force on a federal level.
You assume quite a bit there. Much of it based on things the government currently does under administrations that aren't libertarian and don't seem to have much respect for individual rights.

[mdude85]

You assume quite a bit there. Much of it based on things the government currently does under administrations that aren't libertarian and don't seem to have much respect for individual rights.

I assume too much if I base my assumptions on what actually happens? It seems like that's the best way to make assumptions. People are people. They like control over others. A libertarian government is going to try to have as much control over its citizens as it can because it already knows its power is limited from the starting line. A government which exists under a libertarian system won't be a libertarian government -- it's a farse.

[cyberhound]

read up on the idea of representative democracy. it's what this country is.

Republic and democracy. They are practically the same. But to make the comment that we are not a democracy, is wholely false. And, if anything, we are moving away from a democracy, not toward it.
Representative democracy is somewhat synonomous with republic. But not exactly. We are still a constitutional republic. The constitution trumps the will of the people. Now, as for your assertion that we are a democracy, you have just made that statement false by your own words. Plain and simple, we are not a democracy. No matter how you choose to twist it. If we were, Al Gore would be president right now, and blacks still might not have equal rights or at least wouldn't have gained them back in the 60's.

[cyberhound]

I assume too much if I base my assumptions on what actually happens? It seems like that's the best way to make assumptions. People are people. They like control over others. A libertarian government is going to try to have as much control over its citizens as it can because it already knows its power is limited from the starting line. A government which exists under a libertarian system won't be a libertarian government -- it's a farse.
:BANG

[mdude85]

Representative democracy is somewhat synonomous with republic. But not exactly. We are still a constitutional republic. The constitution trumps the will of the people. Now, as for your assertion that we are a democracy, you have just made that statement false by your own words. Plain and simple, we are not a democracy. No matter how you choose to twist it. If we were, Al Gore would be president right now, and blacks still might not have equal rights or at least wouldn't have gained them back in the 60's.

I still consider that you read up on the many types of democracy. A democracy does not mean there has to be a popular vote.

The constitution trumps the will of the people -- I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Please elaborate.

[mdude85]

:BANG

Way to back up your position.

[cyberhound]

I still consider that you read up on the many types of democracy. A democracy does not mean there has to be a popular vote.

The constitution trumps the will of the people -- I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Please elaborate.
Sigh..... A true democracy is majority rule. In other words, one more vote than 50%. In a democracy of five people, three vote that you should die, and you and another vote you should live. Guess what? YOU LOSE. Hence, if we were a democracy, Al Gore, who had the majority of the popular vote, would be president now. However, a little thing called the constitution stepped in and trumped the will of the people as it was designed to do. The electoral college limited the power of the larger states to elect a president. The word democracy has been bastardized to envelop several different forms of reprsentative government.

[cyberhound]

Way to back up your position.
It's hard to back it up when engaging someone so dense.

[nubby]

Sigh..... A true democracy is majority rule. In other words, one more vote than 50%. In a democracy of five people, three vote that you should die, and you and another vote you should live. Guess what? YOU LOSE. Hence, if we were a democracy, Al Gore, who had the majority of the popular vote, would be president now. However, a little thing called the constitution stepped in and trumped the will of the people as it was designed to do. The electoral college limited the power of the larger states to elect a president. The word democracy has been bastardized to envelop several different forms of reprsentative government.
Your definition of a democracy is not entirely accurate, majority rule doesn't necessarily mean 51%.

[cyberhound]

Your definition of a democracy is not entirely accurate, majority rule doesn't necessarily mean 51%. Well of course, if we had three choices, we would have a plurality. So yes, you got me there.

[chevman]

Representative democracy is somewhat synonomous with republic. But not exactly. We are still a constitutional republic. The constitution trumps the will of the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the will of the people lead to a constitutional amendment? Don't we have a few of those tacked on the end already?

[bluwaterbaboon]

this argument isn't going anywhere is it

[ambysshrink]

a little thing called the constitution stepped in and trumped the will of the people as it was designed to do.
Please oh please tell me that you don't consider yourself to be a Constitutional scholar. :lol :lol

[pkpro1]

who is the libertarian candidate this election? and wouldn't any vote he (or she) gets just be like a vote for nadar (going nowhere and just keeping bush in office)
mike badnarick

[pkpro1]

Sigh..... A true democracy is majority rule. In other words, one more vote than 50%. In a democracy of five people, three vote that you should die, and you and another vote you should live. Guess what? YOU LOSE. Hence, if we were a democracy, Al Gore, who had the majority of the popular vote, would be president now. However, a little thing called the constitution stepped in and trumped the will of the people as it was designed to do. The electoral college limited the power of the larger states to elect a president. The word democracy has been bastardized to envelop several different forms of reprsentative government.
i don't think bastardized is the word.... just abused

[YouCanFeelGood]

I'm quite apathetic towards politics but I thought this should go in here.

For anyone in the VA area, the Libertarian candidate M. Badnarik will be speaking here at UVA on Sept. 14. I'm a first-year student here and I'll be attending for one of my classes.

I'll get more details soon (time, place, etc) if anyone wants it because it's open to non-students as well.

[mdude85]

It's hard to back it up when engaging someone so dense.


That's what all the people say who don't know how to back up their position in an effective manner. It's not difficult to argue your point with someone who is dense.

[mdude85]

Sigh..... A true democracy is majority rule. In other words, one more vote than 50%. In a democracy of five people, three vote that you should die, and you and another vote you should live. Guess what? YOU LOSE. Hence, if we were a democracy, Al Gore, who had the majority of the popular vote, would be president now. However, a little thing called the constitution stepped in and trumped the will of the people as it was designed to do. The electoral college limited the power of the larger states to elect a president. The word democracy has been bastardized to envelop several different forms of reprsentative government.

It's not a "true" democracy. It's called a direct democracy. There are different kinds. How is this so hard to grasp?

[mdude85]

Please oh please tell me that you don't consider yourself to be a Constitutional scholar. :lol :lol

Well, he is right. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to know that.

[mdude85]

I'm quite apathetic towards politics but I thought this should go in here.

For anyone in the VA area, the Libertarian candidate M. Badnarik will be speaking here at UVA on Sept. 14. I'm a first-year student here and I'll be attending for one of my classes.

I'll get more details soon (time, place, etc) if anyone wants it because it's open to non-students as well.

Excuse me for posting my fourth post in a row, but perhaps you can ask him a question for me as I won't be able to be in Virginia on that date ... my question is, "Mr Badnarik... how do you plan to enact the the five-point crime plan and cut taxes at the same time?"

[rapoon]

Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" are excellent reads regarding libertarianism. IMO libertarianism is similar to communism and trickle down economics in the sense it looks great on paper but rarely works in real life.

Good reading: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

[cyberhound]

It's not a "true" democracy. It's called a direct democracy. There are different kinds. How is this so hard to grasp?
Actually nimrod, the most proper term is pure democracy, which is yet another twist on the original meaning. You can call our system of government whatever you want, but democracy is poor choice of words to do so.

[cyberhound]

Please oh please tell me that you don't consider yourself to be a Constitutional scholar. :lol :lol
Great to see you back and amazing us all with your wit and intellect.

[cyberhound]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the will of the people lead to a constitutional amendment? Don't we have a few of those tacked on the end already?
Brilliant observation. You might also add that those have to be done according to the rule of law set forth in the constitution and that even those are safeguarded against the whims of the times by being very difficult to bring about.

[mdude85]

Actually nimrod, the most proper term is pure democracy, which is yet another twist on the original meaning. You can call our system of government whatever you want, but democracy is poor choice of words to do so.

Oh, moving into the ad hom realm I see... I'm not surprised.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Democracy is not poor at all -- "representative democracy" is a good choice of words I think.

[ambysshrink]

Sorry for being a dick, cyberhound, I didn't realize how sarcastic that came across last night when I was exhausted and wrote it... but here's my objection.

Your facts are right, no doubt about it, but the conclusion you draw is misleading.

Ultimately, the Constitution was weighted by electoral votes for two reasons:
1. It was impractical to tally a popular vote at the time the Constitution was drafted, and...
2. As bazaar as it sounds today (as times and contexts have changed), they felt it necessary to make sure that everyone's vote was applicable. Now, they recognized the conundrum--that people in smaller states like Delaware would actually have a bigger vote than people in bigger states like Texas, but they felt it necessary to ensure that a couple of big states couldn't just get together and control the election. Simply put, the electoral process ensured that all people, no matter how small their state, would have some input regarding who is elected president.

If you don't disagree with this then my bad, it just seems like your argument was that the Constitution was written to override the will of the people.

[cyberhound]

Sorry for being a dick, cyberhound, I didn't realize how sarcastic that came across last night when I was exhausted and wrote it... but here's my objection.

Your facts are right, no doubt about it, but the conclusion you draw is misleading.

Ultimately, the Constitution was weighted by electoral votes for two reasons:
1. It was impractical to tally a popular vote at the time the Constitution was drafted, and...
2. As bazaar as it sounds today (as times and contexts have changed), they felt it necessary to make sure that everyone's vote was applicable. Now, they recognized the conundrum--that people in smaller states like Delaware would actually have a bigger vote than people in bigger states like Texas, but they felt it necessary to ensure that a couple of big states couldn't just get together and control the election. Simply put, the electoral process ensured that all people, no matter how small their state, would have some input regarding who is elected president.

If you don't disagree with this then my bad, it just seems like your argument was that the Constitution was written to override the will of the people.
I see where you are going and we are heading towards the same place. The founders did not want a democracy. They wanted limits on the whims of the times, and hence the will of the people. That's why they made laws and the constitution not the easiest things in the world to create and change. Not only that, they placed limits on the power of the government (which in some instances is considered the will of the people but not totally) to usurp individual rights. Of course the constitution was not written to necessarily override the will of the people.

[DMBSignGuy]

I see where you are going and we are heading towards the same place. The founders did not want a democracy. They wanted limits on the whims of the times, and hence the will of the people. That's why they made laws and the constitution not the easiest things in the world to create and change. Not only that, they placed limits on the power of the government (which in some instances is considered the will of the people but not totally) to usurp individual rights. Of course the constitution was not written to necessarily override the will of the people.

i feel bad for you trying to explain how our country has been setup. but youve got it right. the founders were dead set against a democracy. To put it very simply, madison felt that a democracy would lead to a monarchy. (remember in the interset of space i put it a very simplified idea of madisons.) anyways, Madison was huge on protecting the rights of the minority, even to the extent where the government could not get anything done. he purposely gave states like vermont just a little more say than what they should get if ya crunch the numbers so they would have their "protected say" if you will. if one must really understand how and why our country was setup please read the Federalist papers, or if you want some background into the Federalist papers, atleast from Madions prespective read up on Hume, he really influenced Madiosn in his quest to setup a more perfect nation.

[DMBSignGuy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the will of the people lead to a constitutional amendment? Don't we have a few of those tacked on the end already?

actually it cant, and it can work the other way too. a constitution amendment is passed only if 2/3 of each house approve it, the president signs it and 2/3 of the states approve it as well.

a constitutional amendment can be passes with our without the will of the people. or one wont pass with out without the will of the people, the most recent case being the ban on gay marriage.

[DMBSignGuy]

I still consider that you read up on the many types of democracy. A democracy does not mean there has to be a popular vote.

The constitution trumps the will of the people -- I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Please elaborate.

well if the will of the people wanted to deny a group of people their basic rights the constitution tells them, sorry wont happen.

if you want to get technical and really look back at what the founding fathers were talking about we're not even a nation of laws persay...we're a nation of the constitution, no law can supercede the constitution. the basic principles of the constitution will always exist whether we choose to follow them or not. if one day we decide to take away a certain groups rights, they still deserve those rights regardless of what the will of the people or our laws say about it. hopefully that made sense.