Which a lot of GOP-bashers bring up, but no Republican has introduced, nor has it been proposed by the Bush administration.



Hard to defend something that exists only in the imagination of a liberal website owner.  (Every single article on the supposed "Patriot Act II" has been credited to his website, though he has NEVER shown any proof that he saw ANY official document.)



Keep up.  WWIII was the Cold War, we're on WWIV now and we're winning handily.
I have no problems with starting wars as long as you fight the right people and win them.

I haven't bothered to read all the responses here, but as a LP member I'll just offer these words in brief...

It's very difficult to take one or two pieces of the Libertarian ideal and apply them to our current situation.  The Libertarian beliefs hold together very well when implimented together.  However, similiar to the Christian Republican beliefs, they don't always make sense when seperated and applied into the modern "clusterfuck".

Lot of that going around lately too.

-Republicans-How exactly has he "rolled back the government"?
Deeds AND words are what is required. Paul is just talk.  So are you.
Read the Libertarian Platform.
Read the Libertarian Platform.
Read the Libertarian Platform.
THAT is the Libertarians are trying to do.  That is their "this is what we believe, and what we will do if you give us a chance".
No thanks.
Do you actually think that their Platform has nothing to do with who they are?
How naive.
Have you noticed that the NEA no longer gives out grants to individual artists?
Your example of "Piss Christ" is a good one, because such work can no longer be funded -thanks to the Republicans.
But I guess you missed that.  (ill-informed)Hey, you're a Libertarian.
So what's wrong with "drug running"?
According to the Libertarians' Platform, drugs should all be legalized.
Oh, and isn't "drug running", the act of bringing drugs across the BORDER?
The Libertarian Platform doesn't believe in a controlled border.
Why do you?

If you're a Libertarian, stand up for your party and support the very tenets of its philosophy.  You have the nerve to criticize the Republican Party for not being cinservative enough, yet when YOUR party's foolish plans are revealed, you try to distance yourself from them, and respond with more attacks.

The Republican Party is far from perfect.
So's the world.
But their platform is a good one (it's a shame they don't all follow it).
The Libertarian Party supports a platform that is a recipe for the destruction of our nation.
Sure their position on Guns is the best one out there.
So what?
The rest of that Platform is a disaster.

Lyndon LaRouche was never a Libertarian party member, nor was he ever a libertarian.  He never ran for president as a Libertarian.  Lots of people think that; I don't know how that rumor got started, but it sure is a persistant one.

I'm starting to see a pattern here.  Some people will defend the Republicans and George Bush with the tenacity of a tough guy defending his mother's honor.

They see Ron Paul (for example) as a (R) and think that because of his party affiliation, he "is" a Republican.

Libertarians are an independant lot and [b]you won't find many who draw their [u]identity[/u] from a political party[/b].  Many Libertarians don't even like Harry Browne.  Just because someone likes the libertarian philosophy or the platform in general, doesn't mean we have to defend every move the national party makes.  We don't have to surrender our brains and swear an oath of loyalty upon registering as Libertarians.

-Nick Viejo.

I'll take a shot at defending the position, although I don't know for sure if its an actual position of the libertarian party.

I think they are referring to the principle of natural rights being inherent in the person and cannot be given or sold away.  Its like the thought experiment of  “ can a free man willingly sell himself into slavery.”  I don’t think he can, his right to liberty is a part of his person.

So given that as quick context, I think the argument would go something like this;

Given that the armed forces is an employer and provides a service like other organizations, the same body of law should apply to the armed forces as it does for other businesses.

For example, if you are insubordinate to your boss, should you be tried in a special military criminal court?
If you quit your job, is that a criminal offense.

Breach of contract is an offense, so if you signed up for 4 years and you quit after 2 you can take someone to court and sue for damages.

The point is, that the armed forces cannot have a “special” set of laws different from those that apply to everyone else.  I think the platform recognizes that and being good libertarians, they have to consistently apply the principles of law to everyone, regardless of race, creed, or job……


Nels

Well, when people like you don't bother to read or address the whole answer there's just no point to it anymore.

...even if it means destroying the armed forces in the process.
Make no mistake -that would be the result.
No question about it.

The first quote from this thread:
Is a direct quote from the Libertarian Platform.
It is here:
[url]http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html[/url]
Found in chapter I "Individual Rights an Civil Order", under #17 "CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY".
Read it, accept it.
It IS their platform
While you're at it, take time to read the rest of it.
Then imagine what fool would actually support doing this to the United States.

To paraphrase the scriptures, the clusterfuck ye shall always have with ye.  Things are never perfect, all things are never equal and human nature will never change.  Which is why overidealized political philosophies like Libertarianism (and Communism and objectivism) will never ever work when applied on a large scale.  People just don't work that way.

...or as some wise person once said:

 [b]The Libertarians are like eunuchs at an orgy who, in frustration, point to those who are actually able to participte and say:

  "You're not doing it right!"[/b]

Good morning Cincin, since little rikky has just proven again why he's not invited to play any reindeer games, let me answer your last post, first I ain't a libertarian, second why do you feel as a representative of the party in power that you have to go to a fourth rate party and ridicule their policies when you guys are fucking up so well on your own? Is it like the gov't saying there is a threat when there is one....wagging the dog?

Good morning, hound.

Little puppy, I don't need an invitation to play your childish games.  



Maybe it's the overrepresentation that said fourth rate party has on internet gun boards.



Yeah, it's like the gov't saying there is a threat when there is one, just like you say...
[%|]

There are problems with every party and the Libertarian party is no exception.  However, do all the Libertarian bashers think the GOP is perfect?

No political party is pefect and that is the bottom line.  I once considered myself a Libertarian but I also once considered myself a Republican.  I don't know what the hell I am now - somewhere in between.

Yes, the open border policy isn't great and there are other problems with the Libertarian platform.  But tell me, which party is more uncompromisingly pro-gun?  Which party fights for more freedoms?  Which party is more independent from religion?

You know, it bothers me that the GOP and Christianity are basically synonymous but does that mean I am going to bash the crap out of its entire platform?  If we could get the good from both parties and merge into one, it would be great.  Is the Libertarian party pefect? No.  But does it have a lot to offer?  I certainly feel it does.

Since little rikky insists on trying to talk when grown-ups are ahving a discussion....I will try to answer you simply so that you can understand. There is an overabundance of people on gun boards who are concerned about the 2nd. The libertarians are no compromise on that. simple
Sorry I misstyped that last and confused you, I meant when there is not a threat, like an aspirin factory or Bosnia.
And for everyone else, what is the problem with restructuring immigration? Take away the money given to foreigners and quit paying for their kids. The immigration policies we have now are more damaging that a frikken war. We have hospitals in Texas that are closing because of the illegals.

libertarianism, like communism, socialism, marxism, etc. are all idealistic systems.  For them to work properly, pretty much everyone must fall into line and do what the philosophy expects them to do.

The minimum government concept of libertarianism, essentially requires everyone to behave to a high moral and ethical standard on their own hook, and requires everyone to behave responsibly in terms of earning a living, conducting commerce, securing their retirement and medical care, etc. As long as everyone does those things, a lot of government intervention is not required.

Unfortunately people don't operate that way and never have.  Assholes like Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the corporate jag offs who ripped off their companies, employees and investors will always be out there, so will the sloths who refuse to take care of themselves, as well as the unfortunates who cannot take care of themselves due to physical or mental defect.  Under the Libertarian system, the criminals will do as they please, the slothful will die off on thier own, and unfortunately, the less fortunate probably will as well because our society has developed FAR past the 1940's society where families even had a shot of being able to take care of their own effectively.

Lets try a quick exercise in logic:

Pure and unfettered individual liberty requires the abolition of all laws, as ANY law imposes a limitation of individual choices on the individual person.

Does the Libertarian Party and it's platform admit to the necessity of any laws?

I suggest that it does.

Why?  Because that level of pure individual liberty provides NO protection for society at large against those with no moral or ethical fiber in their being.  In a society without laws, such people go about victimizing everyone else until someone kills them out of rage or frustration.

So, the Libertarian party admits that there must be some restrictions upon the liberties of the individual.

Why?  Because, as one libertarian on this thread stated, the individual's liberties end where they impact negatively upon the rights of another.  Laws exist to protect and codify the rights of those "others."

So laws and regulations are a necessity to protect the rights and liberties of people at large from those who don't respect their natural rights and liberties.

For laws to have any effect against persons who do not respect natural rights and liberties, they must be enforceable.  There must exist persons and agencies with the authority to investigate, apprehend, prosecute and punish persons who violate laws and victimize other people in violation of their natural rights and liberties. Those agencies and persons must be funded and trained and supported so that they can be effective in a world with increasing sophisticiation in communications, transportation and other technologies.  If these agencies are not allowed to evolve at a similar pace to the capabilities of the criminals, they will lose effectiveness and the protections they offer and the protections the laws offer, become meaningless.  So agencies like the FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. are necessary (mismanaged to be certain, but necessary).

So at what point does the Libertarian system put up the wall against government?  It seems to me that the line they draw must be arbitrary.  For in the simplistic statement made to me before "you either believe in individual liberty or you don't" it is apparent that anything that impedes individual liberty is anathema to Libertarianism, but since even Libertarians allow for the need for laws, then impediments to individual liberty are clearly allowable by the Libertarian party.  So the protection of individual liberty is NOT absolute in the Libertarian philosophy. So the lines that Libertarianism draws against governmental interference are, logically, arbitrary reflecting a level of tolerance for interference and infringement rather than anabsolute value.   Different philosophies set a different level of tolerance based on what they see as the legitimate needs of society balanced against the liberties of the individual.

So come down off your high horse and recognize that libertarianism is just sitting at a different gradation on a grey scale of freedom.

Personally I think the core prinicples of libertarianism have value across the spectrum of American political philosophy.  Respect for individual rights and liberties as well as an expectation for personal responsibility should inform EVERYTHING that government does, but as even libertarianism admits, there are limits to the sovereignty of the individual.

The United States Military is not just an employer, it cannot be "just an employer."  An army whose soldiers can walk away when they get tired of it all is not effective. The UCMJ recognizes the special needs of an effective military in maintaining discipline in the field and in garrison.  It doesn NOT deny the soldier rights to competent representation under the law or otherwise violate their legal rights under the Constitution.  It does provide a seperate avenue for the protection of those rights and prosecution of infractions against the UCMJ.  What is wrong with that?  Everything according to the libertarian party.  

The fact of the matter is that if a soldier, during time of war, in the middle of a combat action, decides he's had enough and walks away, his unit's effectiveness is damaged and the safety of his comrades and team mates is lessened, their lives are at increased risk and their ability to support and protect their fellow soldiers in other units is reduced endangering lives there.    If joe shmoe on the street walks out on his company in the middle of a million dollar deal, the worst that happens is they lose the deal and maybe someone loses their job. So the penalty for violating your enlistment contract in the military is commensurate to the damage that could be inflicted by that action.  You could go to jail for it.  Corporate contract violations rarely end up in jail time.  Fines perhaps, but not jail time.   Likewise actions that undermine the discipline of the unit (insubordination, etc.) undermine the ability of the leadership element to command and get things done in a timely fashion.  Soldiers must have the discipline to do what they are told, when they are told and not to waste precious time second guessing their superior officers and NCO's who have more information and more training and experience in making those decisions.  Yes the soldier has a duty to question orders that are clearly illegal, immoral or unethical, but they cannot be allowed to question everything or the unit will grind to a halt and become ineffective.  Like it or not, life in a military unit CANNOT be a democracy.  It is a feudal system with an authoritarian command structure wherein subordinates have little discretion in carrying out the instructions of their superiors, it simply will not work any other way.  A good commander will listen to the suggestions of subordinates if they make sense and are presented in a timely fashion, but they have no requirement placed upon them to act on those suggestions or even to listen to them if doing so will prevent them from carrying out their orders or risk making the original plan impossible.

The military isn't an environment where the ordinary rules the civilian world lives by are practical. The UCMJ strikes a balance between maintaining order and discipline and protecting individual serviceperson rights.

If you see any grown-ups, send them my way and we'll have a discussion.



The Libertarians that hang out on gun boards don't compromise on it.  Other Libertarians are more concerned with drug legalization.



One of us is confused, puppy, but it isn't me.



Yes, I agree that Clinton involved us in far too many situations that had no national security interest for us at all.  Thank goodness Bush is only interested in what is in America's interest.



If you're a Libertarian, "restructuring" means opening the borders wide and saying "come on in!"  

First off- remember that there are small-l libertarians and large-l ones. They are not one and the same. I differ with the LP on a couple of issues, like open borders for instance.

As for abolishing the UCMJ, I'm unsure at the moment- I see the argument for it and it makes sense, but then so does the argument against it.



Ha! Its easy for a single human to beat an small pile of ants.


So you oppose the war on Afganistan and Iraq? Because they sure weren't the right people. We need to be going after those who help the attackers on 9/11. Remember that? We shouldn't be doing their work for them.



There is a reason they call Rep. Paul Mr. No- He votes against almost everything. He introduces pro-liberty bills. He speaks out on a lot of things. He is a true hero.


Actually, libertarianism is designed to work with human nature. Its just that most people refuse to see it.



No, totally wrong. libertarianism derives from human nature, and it operates according to human nature.



libertarianism never operates on the assumption that it will fix all problems and that it will be a utopia. Bad things will always happen, the question is how to deal with them. libertarianism says that the best way is to let the market and human nature work without interference.


No, again wrong. The criminals won't do as the please, because A) everybody will be armed to the teeth all the time, and B) there still will be a court and jail system. The slothful SHOULD at least suffer for their conduct. If they want to go anywhere, they must work. And the reason our society doesn't take care of each other is because everybody thinks "the government will take care of that", plus they don't have the money because the gov't takes it. People will help each other out, they do know, but they are very limited.



I agree, and so will most true libertarians, with most of what you said, but the drawing the line is very important. The line is drawn at anything not necessary to protect liberties. The ATF, DEA, etc, AREN'T necessary for that very reason.

Gack!!!

Libertarians are just Anarchists that want to avoid all the historical "mad bomber" baggage.

(before I get pounced on by 20 rabid libratardians)

Go read: [url=http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/tucker/]this[/url]

Tucker's ideology sounds exactly like Dean Russell's "libertarians."

Looked at objectively, Libertarianism / Anarchism is just as ignorant of human nature as Marxism.

Wanna live in a libertarian paradise? Move to Liberia, Somalia or Sudan.

The reason most people have a problem with Libertarianism is that while most people don’t like to be forced to behave in a certain way, most people think they know how other people should behave and are so convinced, that they are willing to force them to do it.

“of course I should be allowed to own guns,  but you can’t; smoke pot, marry multiple wives, buy sex, avoid the draft, not pay taxes etc….etc….”

the reasons for justifying coercion usually boil down to this;

“if we allowed people to act this way, society as we know it would return to violent anarchy….”

Most people think this assertion is a logical argument, that anyone with any sense at all would realize it.  That’s the argument that the left uses to regulate firearms, establish welfare, take over the schools, tax income and regulate businesses, etc…. etc…..

So when it comes to Republican or Democrat, Commie or Fascist, the logic is the same, the emotional screams are the same, the only difference is the specific areas of peoples lives that they want to control.

Whatever the platform if the Libertarian party is, the central idea can be summarised in the famous words of Jimi Hendrix “ I’m the one who’s gonna die when its time for me to die….. so let me live my life the way I want to….”


Nels

Like Liberia?

Bush knows he's gonna lose a LOT of conservative voters, in the next election. Karl Rove is NOT stupid.. Medicare drug benefits, will pull a bunch of white communists. Liberia, 15 billion to Africa for aids, and agreeing with the rascist and Un-constitutional "Diversity" decision of the supreme court, will buy a lot of Black votes..[snoopy]

Many on this site will tell you it's "in Americas interest", to see Bush re-elected...[rolleyes]

Ok here we go...

1. I have many similar reservations about Republicans. And more specifically their current policies that are NOT traditionally their platform.

2. A Libertarian President would never be able to implement the above policies, they require congressional approval remember? But a Lib President would move us a step closer to the Constitution and that would be a good thing.

3. I really don't mind you finding faults like these and I agree that some Libertarian ideas are nuts. But they are still more representative of CURRENT Republicans/Democrats.

4. We already have OPEN BORDERS and a screwed up military full of Islamic plants. Republicans aren't stopping or even addressing the issues.

and finally.

I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE A REPUBLICAN. I always have been in the past and thought I would for the rest of my life. I remember when they were fiscally conservative and THAT was their issue.

It's just not true today. Republicans are becoming more like Democrats everyday and the Democrats are just getting worse.

I feel betrayed.

I feel unrepresented.

I feel I can no longer in good conscience support the Republicans.

And I feel more represented by Libertarians even though I disagree with a LOT of their views. And that is pretty sad.

Now rather than complain about us damn Libertarians who are gonna cost you the next election, why not complain to the Republicans?

Blame them.

They are the party who abandoned us.

Give me the REAL GOP and I'll come back.

I think protecting our embassy in Liberia is in our interest.  If we get involved in trying to overthrow the government there, that's another story.  I've seen no indication as yet that we will.

That makes as much sense as anything you've ever posted.



That's your warped opinion.  It has no basis in fact.



ROFL!  I wonder if you even see the internal contradiction in that argument!  You probably don't, more's the pity.