I dont want to start a flame war, but just curious: What is the Libertarian party stance on:

1. Prayer in schools
2. Death penalty
3. Immigration
4. Welfare (i.e. reform the system or take it down)
5. Militarization, foreign aid and isolationism

I'm not up on the official Libertarian Party platform, but as a small "l" libertarian, here's MY take on all these:

The government ought not to run schools in any way, shape, form or fashion. A government owned school is a recipe for indoctrination of a free people. A private school can do as it wishes regarding religious education, prayer or whatever. You pick which one you like, and send them there. Your money would pay for their education to whatever degree you desired and could afford.

A goverment that proclaims that the people are sovereign, has no business killing its citizens. In a proper libertarian environment, the average felon would wind up dead anyway, as armed citizens defended themselves. Small time crooks and swindlers would wind up broke after being sued for restitution by their victims.

Immigration? Do you live here, do business here? Do you swear not to initate force against anyone and mind your own business? If you do not owe allegiance to some other state, welcome, citizen.

The government has no money for welfare, but people do.  If you see someone in need, and have the wherewithal to help out, then do so, if you wish.  This will be easier without the government imposed taxes, which eat up a full 50% of the average familiy's income (state and federal income taxes, sales taxes, "users fees", licensing fees, property taxes, etc.).

The government has no money to spend on military boondoggles in foreign countries, no power to compel its citizens to serve in the military, and ought to have a much smaller standing army (mostly a training cadre, I think), as envisioned by the founders of the US. In that case, the government would have no means with which to initiate force against another country.  On the other hand, with millions and millions of well-armed citizens, as well as organized militia, trained by goverment cadre onb request, enthusiastic about their freedom, it would be a tough nut to crack if attacked. If a citizen's brigade wants to mess around in upper Slobovia, they are welcome to do so.

Not sure how official all this is, but it fits what I have read.

Going libertarian is a great way to make the liberal democrats very happy.  Any libertarian vote might as well be a vote for the democrat.

I am a strong Libertarian and I could talk for hours on any one of these issues, but I will focus on militarization.

First I ask you this: what kind of country needs a strong, effective military most? One, a country with few close allies, which means that it has no one else to back it up if its military fails. Two, a country surrounded by enemies or possible enemies.

Two countries come to mind before all others with these criteria: Switzerland and Israel. Although the Swiss can be faulted for not fighting the Nazis during World War II, they must be given credit for, with no alliances whatsoever, deterring an invasion by the Nazis by the virtue of their strong military alone. Indeed, when one looks at a map of occupied Europe, Switzerland stands alone as a small, Democratic country that was completely surrounded by a huge Fascist empire. Even more amazing is the way that Israel faired, which was (and is to some extent) surrounded by several bordering states that bitterly despised it, most of which were much larger; while the United States, Israel’s only great ally, was too far away to do anymore than provide material and economic aid. Israel’s military proved itself on several occasions, during each of which it single-handedly defeated nearly all of its bordering states and even ended up gaining territory in most of these conflicts!

Now, you may disagree with some of the points put forth in the preceding paragraph, but you must recognize that both these nations has an extremely effective military for their size. Therefore, to my reasoning, we should try to emulate them in our military policy.

What do these two countries have in common that has made them so effective militarily? The answer is: an armed Citizen militia as the backbone of their military force.

In this system, all citizens of age to fight are given a modern assault rifle and are trained to use it. They then keep this weapon in their home and can be ready, at short notice, to use it to defend their country. These countries, especially Israel, do have a standing army, but this is small in comparison to the citizen militia force.

History has shown that this not only provides for an extremely effective military force, but also for a low domestic crime rate. In fact, the murder rate in Switzerland was nearly zero before the recent parliament shooting, which was an individual act of a disturbed man and cannot possibly be interpreted to represent any type of larger trend.

This type of military is what is outlined in the constitution and has demonstrated throughout history to be most effective at protecting a country.

P.S.- I respectfully disagree Dave-G

Voting Republican has done so well for us, huh? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Any vote for either of the two current major parties is a vote to continue on our merry way in the current handbasket to hell. Like the view so far?

I feel better.  How about you?

My taker is:

1) Public Schools shouldn't indoctrinate. Private schools can do as they wish.

2) The Death Penalty is necessary and appropriate. But, we must make sure that the system is not misused.

3) If you are willing to be an American, Welcome on and all. I don't care if you are CUban, Haitian, whatever. Being an American includes Defending the U.S. if attacked, etc...

4) Welfare should not be. The government has no business being a charity. Now, if people willingly (by donation) wanted to contribute to a welfare program, then that would be OK since it is now a charity.

5) Here is where I disagree somewhat. Ron Paul, et al. are so isolationist that their opinions of how this war should be conducted limit its ability and might get alot of people killed. Most military should be reserve (The people), but a small active force is necessary to immediately combat an attack. I disagree wth sending Soldiers to shitholes that have no effect on America (Korea, Vietnam, Somalia) If they wanted to free cuba or attack a person who is threatening America's oil supply that would be one thing. Because these are important to America's livelihood. Feeding Drug Crazed Somaliens didn't help America get anything but a bunch of Dead Soldiers (Delta Force, Rangers, and Marines)