Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

Here they call for the elimination of "fiat money", and they call for the privitization of coins. They call for a complete separation of state and bank as well.

Right... they call for an end on regulations against alternate forms of legal tender. Which is a little different then calling for the end of a national currency. This is trickier.

Where did the quotes you posted earlier come from?

It says, and I quote: We call for the immediate cessation of such fiscal and monetary policies, as well as any governmental attempts to affect employment levels. We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labor legislation for women and children, governmental restrictions on the establishment of private day-care centers, and the National Labor Relations Act.

...right. But what "protective" labor legislation for children are they talking about here? They say earlier in their platform that children are not to be abused by their parents and that the governmnet should protect children from their parents...

I'll keep reading.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Right... they call for an end on regulations against alternate forms of legal tender. Which is a little different then calling for the end of a national currency. This is trickier.

Where did the quotes you posted earlier come from?

All from the same platform.

...right. But what "protective" labor legislation for children are they talking about here? They say earlier in their platform that children are not to be abused by their parents and that the governmnet should protect children from their parents...

I'll keep reading.

Protective labor legislation such as the age restraints (for children at least). For example, children under a certain age are BY LAW not allowed to work more than a certain number of hours. Without these protective labor laws, children could work for any amount of hours they choose. I think they are being vague intentionally.

 

[Duke]

I also could not find the references to how copyright protection was against Libertarian policy. I saw no mention at all of intellectual property not being real property, so I don't see how you drew that conclusion.

And it says right in the plank about sexuality that sexual activity is limited to consenting adults so your little scare tactic about child prostitution and/or pedophilia is not terribly valid.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I also could not find the references to how copyright protection was against Libertarian policy. I saw no mention at all of intellectual property not being real property, so I don't see how you drew that conclusion.

Libertarian policy on Monopolies

We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy.

Grants of legal privilege = copyrights and patents. One can hold a "monopoly" over a patent or copyright, because no one else is allowed to "copy" it.

And it says right in the plank about sexuality that sexual activity is limited to consenting adults so your little scare tactic about child prostitution and/or pedophilia is not terribly valid.

It also says in the "victimless crimes" section:

the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;

There is nothing in there that mentions a distinction between adult and child. That's a "loophole" that NEEDS to be corrected. Otherwise, the child prostitution/pedophilia assertion stands.

 

[Swift]

I was just reading some of the panel statements again. "Victimless" Crimes. Come on, that's such an oxymoron it's not even funny. I can't even think of a victimless action much less a victimless crime.

Let's say you've got a "casual" user of pot. His parents or spouse detests the use of it, but he does it anyway. Somehow they find out, at this point do you mean to tell me there are no victims? How about the family. Man, this is such a scary way to even think about running a country in which people do not WANT the responsibility for themselves.

 

[Duke]

Libertarian policy on Monopolies

Grants of legal privilege = copyrights and patents. One can hold a "monopoly" over a patent or copyright, because no one else is allowed to "copy" it.

You're stretching for your point but not making it. "Legal privilege" in terms of monopoly means that a certain business is protected from competition. Right now I buy my power through the city I live in. They are my only choice and source for gridded electricity. That is a monopoly that is granted legal privilege over the sale of electricity in my city.

That can't be stretched to cover patent law and copyright. It simply doesn't fit. A particular engineering design or set of words put together in a particular order to form a book constitutes intellectual property. It is then completely subject to the same laws of property rights as real property is. That just doesn't constitute 'legal privilege' the way you're trying to use it.

It also says in the "victimless crimes" section:

the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;

There is nothing in there that mentions a distinction between adult and child. That's a "loophole" that NEEDS to be corrected. Otherwise, the child prostitution/pedophilia assertion stands.

You can say it stands all you want, but it's still a scare tactic because it's still not true:

The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

It's covered and closed. Children do not have the right to choose to be sexually active because they are not adults. And they are protected against having sexuality forced upon them by the same "protection from harm" rights that protect all individuals. You can't pick and choose and individual point and ignore other places where the principle is already covered.

Nice try but these two arguments hold precisely zero water. Stick to the issues where you have some real footing.

 

[Duke]

Come on, that's such an oxymoron it's not even funny. I can't even think of a victimless action much less a victimless crime.

That's a pretty scary thought. I guess I will kill myself so that all the 'victims' of my tyrannical life are spared the consequences of my every action. After all it's only fair. I don't have the right to victimize them (nor would I want it).

Let's say you've got a "casual" user of pot. His parents or spouse detests the use of it, but he does it anyway. Somehow they find out, at this point do you mean to tell me there are no victims? How about the family. Man, this is such a scary way to even think about running a country in which people do not WANT the responsibility for themselves.

I can't say this any more clearly and I apparently can't say it enough, either:

Just because you may not WANT responsibility for yourself does NOT mean you are RELIEVED from responsibility for yourself.

If the user is a minor, he's under the obligation to abide by his parent's wishes. If he wants to emancipate himself from them, he has to A) prove that they have neglected their duties to him, AND B) find and demonstrate that there is a surrogate parent who is willing and able to accept the child as a ward.

If the user is an adult, his family has their choice of A) tolerating his use; B) getting him to voluntarily stop his use; C) not tolerating it and deciding to quit their association with him, or D) prove that he has neglected his duties to them and suing him.

 

[Swift]

That's a pretty scary thought. I guess I will kill myself so that all the 'victims' of my tyrannical life are spared the consequences of my every action. After all it's only fair. I don't have the right to victimize them (nor would I want it).

I can't say this any more clearly and I apparently can't say it enough, either:

Just because you may not WANT responsibility for yourself does NOT mean you are RELIEVED from responsibility for yourself.

Would you agree that all of your actions ultimately effect the people in your sphere of influence? BTW, just because there's a victim doesn't mean there is a detramental effect. I think a better way to say it is a crime that has no effect on anyone else.

The libertarian views just seem so cold and unfeeling. I'm not saying the gov't should be all warm and fuzzy. But if the libertarians were in control, there would be no caring coming from the gov't. Since the gov't exist FOR the people, I find that to be opposite of what I believe our gov't should be doing.

 

[Duke]

Would you agree that all of your actions ultimately effect the people in your sphere of influence?

Of course I would agree. That's why it's my obligation to make sure that my actions don't directly violate anyone else's rights.

It's my obligation to make sure my car is safe enough that it will handle any reasonable driving I may do. It's my obligation to drive reasonably. It's my obligation not to pollute public areas. It's my obligation to ensure my own income for support and any social interaction I may need or want via moral means: 'moral' meaning no theft, fraud, or coersion. It's my obligation not injure or kill anyone who doesn't initiate violence against me or others.

It's my obligation to make sure I don't forget to give my kids dinner before I put them to bed, since I chose to have kids (whether I intended to or not). It's MY obligation to make sure there is dinner to give them and a bed to put them in.

It's my obligation to live up to the contract I have with my partner. But the TERMS of that contract are private and it is only the two of us who need to be satisfied that they are being met.

HOWEVER:

It is not my obligation to make sure that my actions have no effect on others. My every action has some effect on the world. So does yours. If this is intolerable then we might just as well all kill ourselves and be done with it.

I'm not obligated to approve or disapprove of the same things as anyone else. I'm not obligated to guarantee anyone else access to anything. I'm not obligated to guarantee that anyone has the same things I do, or the same advantages, and no one is obligated to provide those guarantees for me.

As long as I am not physically disturbing the peace or directly endangering anyone, I'm not obligated to protect them from being offended if they have the ability to avoid being offended by avoiding me.

None of us Libertarians has ever claimed we don't have obligations. It's just that we don't recognize the obligation to have no effect at all on other people, and we don't recognize the obligation to conform to anyone else's standards if those people can simply choose to associate with others who DO conform.

It's just not logical or reasonable to define it as your right to be protected from everything that you so much as dislike, and then claim that anyone who likes those things is violating your rights.

 

[Duke]

The libertarian views just seem so cold and unfeeling. I'm not saying the gov't should be all warm and fuzzy. But if the libertarians were in control, there would be no caring coming from the gov't. Since the gov't exist FOR the people, I find that to be opposite of what I believe our gov't should be doing.

But what you seem to be calling "caring" always comes for some people at the expense of someone else.

What the government should care about most is the rights of its citizens. RIGHTS means that the government should protect individual citizens from physical harm inflicted by others, from theft or destruction of their property, from fraud (indirect theft). Government should care very deeply about protecting these rights.

But again, you can't reasonably define "rights" to be equivalent to "preferences" or "effects" and then claim your rights are being infringed because something that you don't like exists.

In fact, though it's not really part of Libertarian philosophy, I support the idea of the government providing information that citizens can use to make informed decisions. But I will never support the idea that the government has the right to force people to make what it deems the proper decision.

To give you an example: I don't have a problem with requiring cigarette makers or alcohol distillers to put warning labels on their products that describe the potential hazards of their products. That puts the information directly into the hands of each individual. But outlawing the sale of cigarettes because they are a health risk is NOT moral, because the individual has complete ownership of his own life and has the right to decide what level of risk to his property he is willing to take.

If I have my life savings in $20 chips and I want to risk it all on green 00 at the roulette wheel, are you going to tell me that you (and by extension, the government) has the right to prevent me, since it's such a stupid idea that I shouldn't be allowed to do it?

What if have my life savings in my checking account and I want to invest it in a restaurant serving nothing but deep fried pickles? Is that a decision I should be allowed to make?

I ask again: once you step over the edge, where do you set the level that people can be trusted to make their own decisions? Because even smart people make mistakes every day. If we assume it's our obligation to prevent that, then pretty soon you wind up in a 'society' where everything that's not forbidden is compulsory.

 

[Swift]

ooohh...Duke made a double post! ooooooo

I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. I do not find it intolerable that what others do effect me.

Yes you are obligated access to the press under our constitution.

I can see that the point of the Libertarian party is to put the power in the hands of the people. That's great. But if a people aren't civil, educated or just plain smart enough to want it. You can't FORCE it on them. Because that would go against the entire concept. What about the people that don't want it. I'm not talking about some dude on a mountain somewhere. I'm talking about an educated person that understands the libertarian views and says, I don't want my gov't to act like that. What then?

 

[Duke]

ooohh...Duke made a double post! ooooooo

I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. I do not find it intolerable that what others do effect me.

But the whole gist of your (and Brian's) argument seems to be setting the definition of 'rights' to be rather broad indeed and then claiming that anything of which you disapprove is violating those rights.

Towards that end you guys have made repeated efforts to claim that many actions people perform on themselves cause direct harm to others. Such as a stoned person not being good company causes direct harm to his friends or family.

Yes you are obligated access to the press under our constitution.

NO, I'm not. I can choose to ignore any information I wish. Brian would have control over what I'm allowed to read if he could have it. I do have the right to speak any opinion that I wish but I do NOT have the right to have someone broadcast that opinion for me. If I own my own printing press/radio station/website I can use it as I see fit (lets ignore the concept of 'decency' laws for the moment), but nowhere does the Constitution guarantee that I will have access to a press/transmitter/webserver.

I can see that the point of the Libertarian party is to put the power in the hands of the people. That's great. But if a people aren't civil, educated or just plain smart enough to want it. You can't FORCE it on them. Because that would go against the entire concept.

No one is forcing power on anyone. You're born with rights. You're born with responsibilities to yourself (to provide for your own existence) and others (the reponsibility NOT to cause direct harm to others). You can choose to ignore your rights and you can try to avoid your responsibilities, but they are both an inherent part of your very existence.

What about the people that don't want it. I'm not talking about some dude on a mountain somewhere. I'm talking about an educated person that understands the libertarian views and says, I don't want my gov't to act like that. What then?

I'm an educated person that understands the Republican and Democrat views, and I say "I don't want my government to act like that". Where does that leave me? Everybody's in the same boat on that one.

The thing is, any person who does not WANT permissiveness is always welcome to behave LESS permissively in his own life than the law allows. Do you only think things are a bad idea if they're illegal? No. You make your own decisions and act accordingly.

But if the law is PROHIBITIVE then people who would choose a permissive behaviour are denied the right to make their own decisions and act accordingly.

 

[Swift]

But the whole gist of your (and Brian's) argument seems to be setting the definition of 'rights' to be rather broad indeed and then claiming that anything of which you disapprove is violating those rights.

Towards that end you guys have made repeated efforts to claim that many actions people perform on themselves cause direct harm to others. Such as a stoned person not being good company causes direct harm to his friends or family.

NO, I'm not. I can choose to ignore any information I wish. Brian would have control over what I'm allowed to read if he could have it. I do have the right to speak any opinion that I wish but I do NOT have the right to have someone broadcast that opinion for me. If I own my own printing press/radio station/website I can use it as I see fit (lets ignore the concept of 'decency' laws for the moment), but nowhere does the Constitution guarantee that I will have access to a press/transmitter/webserver.

Well, yes you do. But you misunderstood what I said. You have to give the press access to you. NOt inside your home, but access to your life none the less.

Hmm...I don't think I'm quite as extreme as Brian. But I do agree with him on some points.

I think the major thing is that the libertarin philosophy doesn't stop the cause of a lot of crimes but just punishes them when they happen. That's backwards especially when it comes to drunk driving and controlled substances.

 

[Duke]

Well, yes you do. But you misunderstood what I said. You have to give the press access to you. NOt inside your home, but access to your life none the less.

I don't follow. I can't prevent the press from broadcasting in any public media at all, but I don't have to give them access to my attention at all.

...but that doesn't relieve me from responsibility for knowing whatever it is they're trying to tell me if it affects me.

 

[Swift]

I don't follow. I can't prevent the press from broadcasting in any public media at all, but I don't have to give them access to my attention at all.

...but that doesn't relieve me from responsibility for knowing whatever it is they're trying to tell me if it affects me.

I'm talking about the press being able to be "in" your life. I'm not talking about you having to watch their broadcasts. I'm talking about them getting you on camera and on tape.

 

[Swift]

What is the libertarian stance on disciplining a child? I'm just wondering. I fully plan to spank my children, but not "hurt" them.

So, what's the stance on that?

 

[ledhed]

Well I guess thats why I am not a libertarian (although I feel comfortable with some of thier veiws) this being the primary example thogh of why I am not ..

I think the major thing is that the libertarin philosophy doesn't stop the cause of a lot of crimes but just punishes them when they happen. That's backwards especially when it comes to drunk driving and controlled substances.

Creating a public health hazard to me poses an unreasonable risk and should be dealt with before it happens not after. since it has been proven that some drugs pose an unreasonable risk to the public they are regulated . I do not find it acceptable to put a person in jail because he is stupid enough to use heroin . But the person who sells it to him knowing it is a harmfull and addictive substance should be taken out and shot ...well at least put in jail for a decade . The drug laws as they are now are stupid unfair and unreasonable but that doesnt mean there should not be any at all .

 

[Duke]

What is the libertarian stance on disciplining a child? I'm just wondering. I fully plan to spank my children, but not "hurt" them.

So, what's the stance on that?

The Principle: Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.

Solutions: We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.

I will tell you, speaking as a parent, that spanking rarely does much besides relieve your anger. Even under controlled circumstances it doesn't have much lasting effect. Besides, you may find that your child simply finds spanking as 'the cost of doing business'. They are honestly capable of thinking to themselves, "OK, I want some cookies before dinner. If I get caught, I'll get spanked, but I'll get the cookies... that's worth it."

 

[Swift]

I will tell you, speaking as a parent, that spanking rarely does much besides relieve your anger. Even under controlled circumstances it doesn't have much lasting effect. Besides, you may find that your child simply finds spanking as 'the cost of doing business'. They are honestly capable of thinking to themselves, "OK, I want some cookies before dinner. If I get caught, I'll get spanked, but I'll get the cookies... that's worth it."

That's great, but I don't ever plan to spank my children in anger. Infact, if I'm that mad, I'm going to go cool off and then return to the situation. Not that the child will get away with it. It's that I don't want to strike them in anger. I don't want them to be afraid of me, more like a respectful fear. Their is a difference.

Anyway, you answered my question quite well with the quote, thanks.

 

[Duke]

That's great, but I don't ever plan to spank my children in anger. Infact, if I'm that mad, I'm going to go cool off and then return to the situation. Not that the child will get away with it. It's that I don't want to strike them in anger. I don't want them to be afraid of me, more like a respectful fear. Their is a difference.

Anyway, you answered my question quite well with the quote, thanks.

I understand what you're saying, but as I said, even in a controlled situation, spanking is on effective in a very limited way. You're better off setting a denial of privileges for a certain amount of time as punishment.

Besides, one of the things that we tried - tried, anyway - was that violence is not an acceptable response to a non-violent 'crime'. In other words, if she yelled at her sister or stole something, she was punished by having privileges taken away rather than by being spanked. The few times I've spanked my children has been in response to when they have hit others or physically hurt them.

 

[Danoff]

Creating a public health hazard to me poses an unreasonable risk and should be dealt with before it happens not after. since it has been proven that some drugs pose an unreasonable risk to the public they are regulated . I do not find it acceptable to put a person in jail because he is stupid enough to use heroin . But the person who sells it to him knowing it is a harmfull and addictive substance should be taken out and shot ...well at least put in jail for a decade .

So are you claiming that the person selling heroin is posing an "unreasonable risk"?

 

[Swift]

I understand what you're saying, but as I said, even in a controlled situation, spanking is on effective in a very limited way. You're better off setting a denial of privileges for a certain amount of time as punishment.

Besides, one of the things that we tried - tried, anyway - was that violence is not an acceptable response to a non-violent 'crime'. In other words, if she yelled at her sister or stole something, she was punished by having privileges taken away rather than by being spanked. The few times I've spanked my children has been in response to when they have hit others or physically hurt them.

Who said I wasn't going to take stuff away too? I get what you're saying bud and I understand that spanking doesn't work for all children. But it was very effective with me. Infact, the thought of the possibility was usually deterent enough from doing the little things. The big stuff, well, all children do the big dumb stuff. That's just part of growing up.

But yeah, I get where you're coming from.

So are you claiming that the person selling heroin is posing an "unreasonable risk"?

Yes! Would you knowingly sell someone a deffective car? Or food that you know is spoiled? I would hope not. And there are laws against that. So why shouldn't there be laws against selling a substance that is PROVEN to be bad for EVERYONE?

 

[Danoff]

Yes! Would you knowingly sell someone a deffective car? Or food that you know is spoiled? I would hope not. And there are laws against that. So why shouldn't there be laws against selling a substance that is PROVEN to be bad for EVERYONE?

It's not the same thing. The parallel situation to the drug issue would be me buying a car that the seller TOLD me was deffective - or food that I KNEW was spoiled.

Why SHOULD there by laws against it? That's the real question. Things should be free until proven unreasonable. That it is bad for everyone is not reason to make it illegal. Some people want it anyway. Just like people want cheese fries that are bad for them, they want it anyway.

 

[Swift]

It's not the same thing. The parallel situation to the drug issue would be me buying a car that the seller TOLD me was deffective - or food that I KNEW was spoiled.

Why SHOULD there by laws against it? That's the real question. Things should be free until proven unreasonable. That it is bad for everyone is not reason to make it illegal. Some people want it anyway. Just like people want cheese fries that are bad for them, they want it anyway.

Ok, then it should be legal to shoot everyone unless they die. Because not everyone that is shot is killed.

Heroin DOES hurt everyone that uses it and can kill in some cases. So how is that NOT personal injury and hence a crime by the standards of Libertarianism. Oh, it's not to someone else. See, that's the part that I don't like. So we can have a 100 million people hoplessly addicted to crack, herorin or whatever because they "choose" to and it's their bodies. Man, sorry, not going to work for me.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It seems as if they are intentionally overlooking the fact that when people do drugs they are not ONLY hurting themselves.

 

[Danoff]

It seems as if they are intentionally overlooking the fact that when people do drugs they are not ONLY hurting themselves.

I'm not overlooking it because it's not a fact. They are ONLY hurting themselves.

Ok, then it should be legal to shoot everyone unless they die. Because not everyone that is shot is killed.

Harming someone else is and should be a crime.

Heroin DOES hurt everyone that uses it and can kill in some cases. So how is that NOT personal injury and hence a crime by the standards of Libertarianism. Oh, it's not to someone else.

Exactly. The parallel would be me choosing to shoot myself - which should be legal.

 

[Swift]

Exactly. The parallel would be me choosing to shoot myself - which should be legal.

It's like this. Selling guns isn't a crime. Why? Because guns can be used for a thousand different things then murder. But heroin can only be used as a drug. So the person selling it KNOWS it. So that's knowingly hurting someone. Isn't that a crime by the standards of libertarianism.

 

[Danoff]

It's like this. Selling guns isn't a crime. Why? Because guns can be used for a thousand different things then murder. But heroin can only be used as a drug. So the person selling it KNOWS it. So that's knowingly hurting someone. Isn't that a crime by the standards of libertarianism.

No.

Cheese fries will only raise cholesterol. The person selling it KNOWS it. So by knowingly raising someone's cholesterol aren't they commiting a crime?

No. If you go back through there is a false assumption there - that the person selling the cheese fries is raising the other person's cholesterol. In fact, it's the person BUYING the cheese fries that is raising THEIR OWN cholesterol - which is rightly legal.

 

[Swift]

No.

Cheese fries will only raise cholesterol. The person selling it KNOWS it. So by knowingly raising someone's cholesterol aren't they commiting a crime?

No. If you go back through there is a false assumption there - that the person selling the cheese fries is raising the other person's cholesterol. In fact, it's the person BUYING the cheese fries that is raising THEIR OWN cholesterol - which is rightly legal.

This is just so stupid. The Libertarian party values life, but doesn't care if people kill themselves. Oh, it's your freedom to kill yourself because your life is yours. Nope, it's not. Nobody completely owns their own life. Let's not even talk about the spiritual world. Just the natural. Does Duke own his own life? Nope, he's got a family and that means that he needs to take care of them. If he decided to commit suicide in anyway, would that not be an extremely jacked up situation for his family? The idea that the individual owns themselves is just false. If you can't create something, how can you own it? Yes, we contributed to creation with procreation. But we still don't create it from nothing. Since we're not able to bring people back from the dead, do we truly own our life? I'm thinkin no.

 

[Danoff]

This is just so stupid. The Libertarian party values life, but doesn't care if people kill themselves. Oh, it's your freedom to kill yourself because your life is yours. Nope, it's not. Nobody completely owns their own life.

Well there's the fundamental disagreement.

Does Duke own his own life? Nope, he's got a family and that means that he needs to take care of them.

Does their need give them ownership over him? Certainly if he doesn't meet their need, he may no longer have custody of them - but ownership?

Does anyone's need give them ownership over you?