Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Duke]

The above examples are not naturally competitive industries -- therefore, they need to be regulated. I'm going to stick with electric companies, though. It takes a long time to build power plants and the free market can't predict weather conditions. You live in a city where a power grid is still publicly regulated. What do your electricity bills look like? Under a regulated system, electric prices should be set by a public utility commissions. They maintain the power grid and should have plenty of generating capacity. Deregulation (for the most part) resulted in increased prices.

Let me show you another side of that coin:

New Jersey heavily regulated the selling of automobile insurance. They placed all kinds of premium limits and coverage minimums that insurance companies must provide. They placed hundreds of restrictions on who insurance companies could refuse to insure.

Guess what? 4 out of the 5 largest insurers stopped doing business in New Jersey. Real insurance coverage dropped drastically and prices stayed high.

Yeah, regulation works just great. But then again, you probably think that since people need a car to survive that they have a right to insurance coverage.

Now, with New Jersey finally realizing that they screwed up royally and putting serious work into deregulating it, the insurance industry is on the rebound there. Many of the top insurers are coming back to the state, and rates are falling.

Three cheers for a centrally planned economy!

No one is forced. Everyone works together.

??? And yet you say "communism" like you still think it's a dirty word. Is that a farce? Under a free market economy everyone works together who wants to work together, and no one is forced. You're confused. See below.

People are not property (although you would argue otherwise).

No, Brian, it is you who says otherwise. Your every argument says that people have "right" to food and a "right" to housing and a "right" to medical care and a "right" to education.

So you think that farmers and carpenters and doctors and teachers are all the property of everyone else with a "right" to the products they need. Because human beings need those things you enslave other human beings to provide them.

And yet this is exactly what you accuse us of doing, with unconcealed horror in your words.

You've got it so fundamentally backwards that it's almost amusing, if it hadn't gotten us into the mess it currently has.

 

[Famine]

You live in a city where a power grid is still publicly regulated. What do your electricity bills look like? Under a regulated system, electric prices should be set by a public utility commissions. They maintain the power grid and should have plenty of generating capacity. Deregulation (for the most part) resulted in increased prices.

In the United Kingdom, gas and electric utilities were privatised in 1986 and 1990 respectively. According to the UK's Department of Trade and Industry (DTi):

In real terms, average annual domestic electricity prices in 2001, including VAT, were 25.9 per cent lower than in 1995 and 24.2 per cent lower than in 1990, the year of privatisation. Average annual domestic gas prices in 2001, including VAT, were 18.5 per cent down on 1995 and 33.2 per cent down on 1986, the year of privatisation.

Now, call me strange, but an inflation-adjusted 33.2% and 24.2% drop isn't "increased prices", to my mind.

 

[Danoff]

The above examples are not naturally competitive industries -- therefore, they need to be regulated. I'm going to stick with electric companies, though. It takes a long time to build power plants and the free market can't predict weather conditions. You live in a city where a power grid is still publicly regulated. What do your electricity bills look like? Under a regulated system, electric prices should be set by a public utility commissions. They maintain the power grid and should have plenty of generating capacity. Deregulation (for the most part) resulted in increased prices.

So, that's a no then? You don't have an example?

No one is forced. Everyone works together.

As Duke pointed out, you're advocating forcing people to "work together" or more appropriately "do what they're told".

People are not property (although you would argue otherwise).

Duke covered this nicely.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Let me show you another side of that coin:

New Jersey heavily regulated the selling of automobile insurance. They placed all kinds of premium limits and coverage minimums that insurance companies must provide. They placed hundreds of restrictions on who insurance companies could refuse to insure.

Guess what? 4 out of the 5 largest insurers stopped doing business in New Jersey. Real insurance coverage dropped drastically and prices stayed high.

Yeah, regulation works just great.

Insurance is a naturally competitive industry. They should not have regulated it to the point of becoming anti competitive.

But then again, you probably think that since people need a car to survive that they have a right to insurance coverage.

I remember distinctly making the comment that cars are a privilege and not a necessity.

Now, with New Jersey finally realizing that they screwed up royally and putting serious work into deregulating it, the insurance industry is on the rebound there. Many of the top insurers are coming back to the state, and rates are falling.

Because insurance is a naturally competitive industry. 💡 Utilities, telecommunications etc. are not.

??? And yet you say "communism" like you still think it's a dirty word. Is that a farce? Under a free market economy everyone works together who wants to work together, and no one is forced. You're confused. See below.

There is no such thing a "free" market. All markets have regulations.

No, Brian, it is you who says otherwise. Your every argument says that people have "right" to food and a "right" to housing and a "right" to medical care and a "right" to education.

And what's wrong with that?

So you think that farmers and carpenters and doctors and teachers are all the property of everyone else with a "right" to the products they need. Because human beings need those things you enslave other human beings to provide them.

Incorrect.

You've got it so fundamentally backwards that it's almost amusing, if it hadn't gotten us into the mess it currently has.

What mess are you referring to?

As Duke pointed out, you're advocating forcing people to "work together" or more appropriately "do what they're told".

Incorrect. I'm advocating people work together to do the right thing.

 

[Carl.]

In the United Kingdom, gas and electric utilities were privatised in 1986 and 1990 respectively. According to the UK's Department of Trade and Industry (DTi):



Now, call me strange, but an inflation-adjusted 33.2% and 24.2% drop isn't "increased prices", to my mind.

Electricity has been nationalized in 1963 here in Quebec, and we're enjoying the lowest rates in North America, while Hydro-Quebec is still making a profit for the state.

So much for the "government organisations are inherently inefficient and wrong" rhetoric.

I guess we should have gone the other route, like we've done with oil companies. I've been enjoying so much the benefits of a "free" market at the pump lately. Imagine all the happy shareholders of an oligopoly happy about using speculation to screw up the rest of the population once the electricity market is stabilized.

Oh well, that's not fair of me, I must admit that enjoyed the benefits of a free competition in the oil market, once.

In 1995, independant local distributors were growing at a steady rate here. But thank god that seeing this, the major players started a price war, getting prices at the lowest point I'll ever see in my entire life. Once the majority independant choked and closed, or were bought out, priced have soared again, for good. They were only over 3 time as high as they were in 95 recently.

Mmmh, free markets, the good old, unregulated way.

 

[Duke]

Incorrect. I'm advocating people work together to do the right thing.

So you want them to freely choose to do what you tell them to. Right. I have 4 words for you:

"Sanction of the victim".

 

[Swift]

In 1995, independant local distributors were growing at a steady rate here. But thank god that seeing this, the major players started a price war, getting prices at the lowest point I'll ever see in my entire life. Once the majority independant choked and closed, or were bought out, priced have soared again, for good. They were only over 3 time as high as they were in 95 recently.

Mmmh, free markets, the good old, unregulated way.

Very good examples. However it's more about the regulations themselves and of course the people that run them. Obviously, in Quebec they did it right with electricity.

I really wish that we COULD have regulated things like that in the US. But we tend to put too much emphasis on ourselves and not the system. As the case with the levies in New Orleans.

 

[Danoff]

Electricity has been nationalized in 1963 here in Quebec, and we're enjoying the lowest rates in North America, while Hydro-Quebec is still making a profit for the state.

That's gonna last... Electricity has basically been nationalized here in America as well. It's been a great way to keep rates high, customer service down, and innovation far away.

 

[Carl.]

That's gonna last... Electricity has basically been nationalized here in America as well. It's been a great way to keep rates high, customer service down, and innovation far away.

As far as I know, it has been privatised in some states (Massachusetts, for example), but the last time I've checked we were still having lower prices.

As for the rates, customer service and administration, why is it that we don't have these issues here? Rates are relatively low, customer service is well, decent, and I don't see how innovation has been dragged down in any way since we nationalized it, in fact our greatest realizations have been made after it.

The issues you're pointing are only bad management issues, they do not demonstrate any fundamental principle separating privately and publicly run organizations.

Do you think that your employer is keeping innovation away from the aerospace industry?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So you want them to freely choose to do what you tell them to.

That's sounds a lot like Libertarianism to me.

...and no, it has nothing to do with what I want or what I tell people what to do. My opinion is only as powerful as my vote. Conservatives like yourself seek to eliminate democracy by placing property rights over all else.

Add the alternative "none of the above" to all ballots. In the event that "none of the above" receives a plurality of votes in any election, either the elective office for that term should remain unfilled and unfunded, or there shall be a new election in which none of the losing candidates shall be eligible.

So there's no functioning government since the elective office is unfilled...

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of -- or in any manner enjoy -- their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

And though we're supposedly "free" involuntary servitude, "volunatary" servitude is justified.

 

[Swift]

That's sounds a lot like Libertarianism to me.

...and no, it has nothing to do with what I want or what I tell people what to do. My opinion is only as powerful as my vote. Conservatives like yourself seek to eliminate democracy by placing property rights over all else.

Hmm...that's a pretty serioius charge there Brian.

I wish property owners rights were stronger. Specifically in the private sector. It sickens me how a thief can sue the person they are stealing from if they get injured or whatever.

 

[Danoff]

As far as I know, it has been privatised in some states (Massachusetts, for example), but the last time I've checked we were still having lower prices.

It's not privatized in many places here. It's pretty much nationalized, except that different outfits are in charge of different regions.

As for the rates, customer service and administration, why is it that we don't have these issues here? Rates are relatively low, customer service is well, decent, and I don't see how innovation has been dragged down in any way since we nationalized it, in fact our greatest realizations have been made after it.

Which realizations are those?

The issues you're pointing are only bad management issues, they do not demonstrate any fundamental principle separating privately and publicly run organizations.

Oh but they do. Where is the incentive for the government to keep prices low or to manage properly?

Do you think that your employer is keeping innovation away from the aerospace industry?

No, and that example isn't even close to parallel.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Hmm...that's a pretty serioius charge there Brian.

It's the truth. Conservatism is deeply rooted in aristocracy/plutocracy/oligarchy.

I wish property owners rights were stronger. Specifically in the private sector. It sickens me how a thief can sue the person they are stealing from if they get injured or whatever.

To me, that's wrong. The rights of the criminal should never supercede the rights of the victim. However, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about plutocrats using their clout to control people who don't have what they have -- massive amounts of private property.

All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.

Oh but they do. Where is the incentive for the government to keep prices low or to manage properly?

Getting elected next term. That's what democracy (and not Libertarian plutocracy) is all about. Can you vote down the boss of your corporation (assuming you work for one) because he's doing a lousy job of running the company? No.

 

[Danoff]

It's the truth. Conservatism is deeply rooted in aristocracy/plutocracy/oligarchy.

It isn't the truth and you should know it by now after having participated in this thread for as long as you have.

I'm talking about plutocrats using their clout to control people who don't have what they have -- massive amounts of private property.

Who is controlled? How?

Getting elected next term. That's what democracy (and not Libertarian plutocracy) is all about. Can you vote down the boss of your corporation (assuming you work for one) because he's doing a lousy job of running the company? No.

When will you learn that private is not the same as public. Corporate not the same as government.

Getting elected next term is not what any of the appointed agency managers are worried about. Case in point... FEMA.

By the way, that franklin quote is talking about legitimizing taxes. You're taking it out of context.

 

[Swift]

By the way, that franklin quote is talking about legitimizing taxes. You're taking it out of context.

Not pointing a finger at Brian, but a LOT of people do that with the bible as well.

BTW, getting elected next term is every polititians goal the last time I checked.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Who is controlled? How? When will you learn that private is not the same as public. Corporate not the same as government.

Ah I get it now! 💡 When a government creates a monopoly (like the Postal Service) it's coercive. However, when a corporation uses its economic and political muscle to drive competitiors out of business, destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people, and set its own prices it's not coercive -- they're acting of their own free will.

When will you learn that coercion is coercion regardless of where it's coming from.

Getting elected next term is not what any of the appointed agency managers are worried about. Case in point... FEMA.

"Appointments" are not a democracy. These agency managers should be subject to the same voting procedures as any other elected official. Which leads me to my next point:

Why do you have a problem with reform? Nowhere in the LP platform is there any suggestion that they want to reform parts of the government -- just that they want to eliminate parts entirely. Why the unhealthy obsession?

By the way, that franklin quote is talking about legitimizing taxes. You're taking it out of context.

No, I'm not taking it out of context. Case in point:

The Right to Property

Solutions: We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

Transitional Action: Repeal property tax laws and force government to fund property protection services with user fees.

Not pointing a finger at Brian, but a LOT of people do that with the bible as well.

The quote was relevant to the topic at hand.

BTW, getting elected next term is every polititians goal the last time I checked.

It is. But Dan made a good point. Not all government officials are elected; some officials are appointed which inevitably leads to cronyism and nepotism. That is why I believe ALL government officials should be elected and subject to strict term limits.

 

[Danoff]

It is. But Dan made a good point. Not all government officials are elected; some officials are appointed which inevitably leads to cronyism and nepotism. That is why I believe ALL government officials should be elected and subject to strict term limits.

On that we can agree, government agencies are well known here in the US to be unconstitutional (they teach you that in your first year of law school). But we do it anyway.

Brian, we found a common ground. Appointed agency management is stupid.

By the way, the Franklin quote was being used out of context because he was talking about legitimization of tax laws and I was not. I won't defend everything written on the LP website - some of it is wrong.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

On that we can agree, government agencies are well known here in the US to be unconstitutional (they teach you that in your first year of law school). But we do it anyway.

Just because they're unconstitutional does not mean that they should be eliminated.

Brian, we found a common ground. Appointed agency management is stupid.

I never thought that would happen!

It isn't the truth and you should know it by now after having participated in this thread for as long as you have.

Where in this thread has the topic of voting rights come up?

What is or is not moral is not up for vote.

...is all I remember seeing...

All that tells me is that we should only be voting for candidates. Not laws, regulations etc.

 

[Danoff]

Just because they're unconstitutional does not mean that they should be eliminated.

It's a strong reason for elimination - or at least a return to control by elected representatives (congress) who is constitutionally supposed to control it in the first place.

All that tells me is that we should only be voting for candidates. Not laws, regulations etc.

Ah, well perhaps I misunderstood. Yes, I am in favor of a republic rather than strict democracy.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It's a strong reason for elimination - or at least a return to control by elected representatives (congress) who is constitutionally supposed to control it in the first place.

I would consider the latter, but totally reject the former.

Ah, well perhaps I misunderstood. Yes, I am in favor of a republic rather than strict democracy.

That's all I wanted to know. I wasn't entirely sure based on the previous posts.

 

[Danoff]

I would consider the latter, but totally reject the former.

Why would you not consider the elimination of an agency created unconstitutionally? Congress does not have the constitutional authority to delegate it's governming decisions to bodies like the EPA or the FDA which now essentially make law without having ever been elected.

The elimination of those bodies would then require congress (our elected officials) to handle the issues that those agencieis handled.

That's a perfect solution. I'd much rather them spend time on those things (and be accountable for them) instead of Terri Schaivo.

 

[Swift]

The quote was relevant to the topic at hand.

I did say I wasn't pointing a finger at you right? I was just making a point about people taking things out of context.

It is. But Dan made a good point. Not all government officials are elected; some officials are appointed which inevitably leads to cronyism and nepotism. That is why I believe ALL government officials should be elected and subject to strict term limits.

Yeah. But how about the presidential Chief of staff? That would be pretty silly if you asked me. But I do think that ALL judges should be elected(or at least confirmed by elected officials) not simply given a job.

 

[Famine]

Electricity has been nationalized in 1963 here in Quebec, and we're enjoying the lowest rates in North America, while Hydro-Quebec is still making a profit for the state.

The question is not "How do your rates on "x" system compare to rates in other countries on "x", "y", "z" systems", but "How do your rates on "x" system compare to your rates before "x" system?"

Adjusted for inflation, are your electricity rates higher or lower than in 1963, when the systems changed (from private to national)? Edit: Looks like more. MUCH more:

Adjusted for inflation, electricity (and gas) rates in the UK are lower than in 1986/1990, when the systems changed (from national to private).

 

[Danoff]

Yeah. But how about the presidential Chief of staff? That would be pretty silly if you asked me. But I do think that ALL judges should be elected(or at least confirmed by elected officials) not simply given a job.

Because of the sloppy way I handled myself up there this is going to sound contradictory.... but I don't necessarily think that all government officials or employees should be elected. The members of lawmaking bodies should be elected by the people their laws are imposed upon. That means that congress cannot delegate the regulation of the environment or medicine to unelected officials - since that regulation is effectively law.

Other government employees like the chief of staff or military generals need not be elected. Similarly (in theory) with judges, since judges are not (in theory) making law, but, rather, interpreting it.

(Now to clear up the apparent contradiction. I was agreeing with Brian on that congress should not be able to delegate its lawmaking power to agencies, as prescribed by the consitution, - not with the sentiment that all government officials should be elected).

 

[Danoff]

The question is not "How do your rates on "x" system compare to rates in other countries on "x", "y", "z" systems", but "How do your rates on "x" system compare to your rates before "x" system?"

Adjusted for inflation, are your electricity rates higher or lower than in 1963, when the systems changed (from private to national)? Edit: Looks like more. MUCH more:

Adjusted for inflation, electricity (and gas) rates in the UK are lower than in 1986/1990, when the systems changed (from national to private).

This is why I like you. 👍

 

[Swift]

(Now to clear up the apparent contradiction. I was agreeing with Brian on that congress should not be able to delegate its lawmaking power to agencies, as prescribed by the consitution, - not with the sentiment that all government officials should be elected).

The problem is that judges have been making law recently. That's a big part of the problem.

 

[Carl.]

Which realizations are those?

5th and 6th most powerful hydro-electric plants in the world (we own a 3rd of the one ranked 6th, which is located in Labrador, Newfoundland - and I think this one also holds the record for world's largest underground facility)

Manic 5, which is the largest multi-arch dam in the world.

(note: Quebec has less population than NYC, suburbs excluded)

Oh but they do. Where is the incentive for the government to keep prices low or to manage properly?

As Mark said, being re-elected. Besides that, Hydro-Quebec's ceo makes over 2.5 times more in salary than our prime minister. Also, Hydro-Quebec being a cash cow for the government is an obvious incentive to keep it that way, otherwise their budget will suck badly (or even more that they currently do, as some would say), and they have to do it while maintaining decent prices for the public.

No, and that example isn't even close to parallel.

Why so? After all, it's a very complex enterprise that requires good management and complex engineering... how can you say that this can be effectively done within a public organization, while producing electricity can't?

The question is not "How do your rates on "x" system compare to rates in other countries on "x", "y", "z" systems", but "How do your rates on "x" system compare to your rates before "x" system?"

Adjusted for inflation, are your electricity rates higher or lower than in 1963, when the systems changed (from private to national)? Edit: Looks like more. MUCH more:

Adjusted for inflation, electricity (and gas) rates in the UK are lower than in 1986/1990, when the systems changed (from national to private).

Famine, could you please look at the graph again, and check what the red dotted line is for. Tell me what does the yellow line being under it in 2003 means, in your own words. Over a period of 40 years, I'd say that it's quite a performance. I'll admit that it did go over the CPI though... by what looks to be a jaw-dropping 1 or 2 % for a few years.

When you look at how oil made the cpi jump in the last years, stating that something, adjusted for inflation, is priced below where it was 10 years ago isn't saying much...

I also love how that yellow line compares with the other two, especially since Canada actually produces a lot more Oil than it consumes.

There's absolutely no doubt that Canada's economy would be so much worse with regulated oil prices roughly following the same path as the CPI. I mean, what would we do without those speculative spikes? What would be the incentive to drill for oil??💡

 

[Duke]

Brian, I hate to say it, but I give up again. You just cannot seem to fathom the words I'm saying in the clearest English I possibly can. No matter how I say it, you seem to arrive at the polar opposite conclusion of where I'm going.

I'm not saying that I expect you to be convinced, or even to agree with me... but I can't keep going when I'm so utterly failing to get the point to you in a way it's understood at least.

 

[Danoff]

5th and 6th most powerful hydro-electric plants in the world (we own a 3rd of the one ranked 6th, which is located in Labrador, Newfoundland - and I think this one also holds the record for world's largest underground facility)

That's a realization? That's innovation? That's been around for a long time. I'm not impressed. I'm talking about advancing the state of the art in power generation.

As Mark said, being re-elected. Besides that, Hydro-Quebec's ceo makes over 2.5 times more in salary than our prime minister.

So the Hydro-Quebec ceo is elected?

Also, Hydro-Quebec being a cash cow for the government is an obvious incentive to keep it that way, otherwise their budget will suck badly (or even more that they currently do, as some would say), and they have to do it while maintaining decent prices for the public.

It's a cash cow? What percentage of your local government's revenue does it bring in? How much is subsidized at the local and national level?

Why so? After all, it's a very complex enterprise that requires good management and complex engineering... how can you say that this can be effectively done within a public organization, while producing electricity can't?

Government is effective. The US military, for example, is effective. NASA is effective. Our law enforcement is effective. The FDA is effective (though not in the way they intend). Government is simply slow and expensive... but they get the job done (eventually). Look at the situation for New Orleans here in the US. Government was slow to respond. But when it did, it responded with huge overwhelming levels of troops and supplies. Money was wasted (and still is being wasted) left and right. Like I said, slow, expensive, and effective. Sometimes too much effect. Sometimes the wrong effect. But almost always lots of effect.

Famine, could you please look at the graph again, and check what the red dotted line is for. Tell me what does the yellow line being under it in 2003 means, in your own words. Over a period of 40 years, I'd say that it's quite a performance. I'll admit that it did go over the CPI though... by what looks to be a jaw-dropping 1 or 2 % for a few years.

Perhaps you could take another look at that chart. Did the government really do better than private industry? It managed to maintain the levels provided by industry, that's it. You're also dealing with a power source that is the least affected by changes to the price of oil and natural gas, so I would expect that it wouldn't change much. On the otherhand not every major city has the luxury of being able to supply hydro-electric power due to proximity to natural resources. Hydro power has some major drawbacks. I would be more impressed if you relied on nuclear power.

Anyway just be careful when claiming that your government is providing power "more" effeiciently than private industry, because the data doesn't support it.

There's absolutely no doubt that Canada's economy would be so much worse with regulated oil prices roughly following the same path as the CPI. I mean, what would we do without those speculative spikes? What would be the incentive to drill for oil??💡

Price regulation would simply drive people out of business and create a shortage.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Brian, I hate to say it, but I give up again. You just cannot seem to fathom the words I'm saying in the clearest English I possibly can. No matter how I say it, you seem to arrive at the polar opposite conclusion of where I'm going.

I'm not saying that I expect you to be convinced, or even to agree with me... but I can't keep going when I'm so utterly failing to get the point to you in a way it's understood at least.

Sanction of the victim quotes:

the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the 'sin' of creating values

Let me guess:

I'm the "good", government is "evil", and I'm accepting the role of sacrificial victim for the sin of creating values.

Our dictatorship in America today is coming about voluntarily. And because it is, it is the most despicable and shameful form of enslavement that there is. Our media pundits and academics are willingly giving up their freedom, their rights, and their money to the unbridled State.

This quote is quite amusing, actually. What highly-advanced society exists today that doesn't have rules or taxes (aside from Somalia of course)?

Dominating every other priority ... is the drive to destroy the concept of private property.

Spoken like a true aristocrat.

Those who seek to rule and regulate your every action know that, without the right to own and control property, there can be no economy, no rule of law.

A capitalist system ceases to exist without property rights and, without this fulcrum, no other rights are possible.

If you cannot own property, you become the property of the State.

So let's eliminate all public property (in one region) for a few years just to see what happens. I'm all for experimentation.

joke >>> Instead, let's all become property of the people who own and control the means of production! <<< joke

Fun fact #1: Slaveholders made the exact same arguments for property rights and the complained about becoming state property too (which is why they tried to secede from the Union).

(DISCLAIMER: NOT ALL LIBERTARIANS AGREE WITH EVERY PART OF THE PLATFORM)

Fun fact #2: The Libertarian Party platform encourages secession:

Secession

The Issue: People are forced to be subject to governments and to participate in their programs, usually as providers of financial support, regardless of their wishes to the contrary.

The Principle: As all political association must be voluntary, we recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right to secession by political entities, private groups or individuals. Exercise of this right, like the exercise of all other rights, does not remove legal and moral obligations not to violate the rights of others.

Solutions: We support the right of political entities, private groups and individuals to renounce their affiliation with any government, and to be exempt from the obligations imposed by those governments, while in turn accepting no support from the government from which they seceded.

Transitional Action: As a transition step, we support the right of political entities, private groups and individuals to renounce their participation in any government program, and to be exempt from the obligations imposed by that program, while in turn accepting no benefit from the program from which they seceded.

Here's the problem. How exactly can you live in this country and NOT get support from the government?

If that's the case:

• Don't call 911
• Don't flush the toilet
• Don't go to public schools (or as in my case a state university)
• Don't call the fire department
• Don't visit public parks
• Don't eat USDA inspected meat, cheese, eggs etc.
• Don't take medication approved by the FDA
• Don't take elevators (as they are inspected by the government)
• Don't use the services of a doctor who is licensed by the state
• Don't go to a public library
• Don't use dollar bills or coins -- barter instead
• Don't open a bank account that is insured by the FDIC
• Don't go to the beach
• Don't use public transportation
• Don't cross the George Washington Bridge (or the Tappan Zee for that matter)
• Don't expect the government to protect your copyrighted or patented ideas

Duke, "Sanction of the victim" is as nonsensical to me as positive rights are to you.

And finally:

Competition, technology and private ownership are the foundations of sound environmental protection - and the basis of our very society.

In the 1950s, cognizant of the PR and commercial advantages of protecting the environment, large corporations actively invested in technologies to decrease the amount of pollutants released into our country's air and water. Similarly, recognizing the importance of maintaining our rainforests as a source of economic wealth for future generations, the logging industry wisely cut into forests in a way that preserved their natural beauty and integrity for future generations. As cleaner air and water were achieved, and vital resources protected the government never once had to intervene.

Government is simply slow and expensive...

Which is exactly why corporations are run like little markets with no centralized leadership.