2012 Libertarian Party Platform

Discussion in 'US Election 2012' started by jks9199, Sep 11, 2012.

  1. jks9199

    jks9199 Administrator Staff Member

    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    21,590
    Likes Received:
    1,993
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Northern VA
    For convenience -- I'm posting and sticking each party's platform in this forum. Perhaps we can get some real discussion about them if we have an easy place to find them... Since they're rather lengthy -- I'm only including the Preamble or introductions from each here.

    Complete Text


    PREAMBLE

    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

    We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

    Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

    In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

    These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.


    STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

    We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.



    Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

    We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

    Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
     
  2. arnisador

    arnisador Sr. Grandmaster

    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    44,560
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Terre Haute, IN
    I like a lot of what they say--though putting 'cult' in there is spoiling for a fight--but when it comes down to specific policies I often find they want to cut much too far for me. This sounds kind of Ayn Rand to me.
     
  3. Bob Hubbard

    Bob Hubbard Retired

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    • Founding Member
    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    47,249
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Land of the Free
    The Libertarian focus has traditionally been one of small government, and personal responsibility. I find it more my style than either the big-government approach of the dems who encourage government dependence and non-responsibility for the people, or the reps who encourage the same but for big corporations. I think though the LP doesn't cut enough from big government, but at the same time, I'm not sure I want to dig a well, and poop in a hole in the yard, y'know? :)
     
  4. arnisador

    arnisador Sr. Grandmaster

    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    44,560
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Terre Haute, IN
    Yes--I like the principles but the devil is always in the details. And then scale it up--a cut acceptable to you may not be to me, etc., which is part of why we're where we are.

    When they say "we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals" to they mean courts shouldn't enforce valid contracts? I thought they have usually been Ok with that. Or does it mean I should be able to sell myself into indentured servitude if I make that choice? They take things to such extremes sometimes that I am never sure what they intend. Too much of what they want seems to depend on "men of good will" in some ways.
     
  5. Bob Hubbard

    Bob Hubbard Retired

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    • Founding Member
    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    47,249
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Land of the Free
    True, and the details are often hard to come by. Problem is, few pure Libertarian's get into office as the DNC and GOP have manipulated laws to protect them and keep outsiders out. See the 2008 Texas ballot where 3rd parties had to meet exacting standards, but they got a pass when they failed to meet deadlines they had established.

    But we can tear into platform planks for all the parties.

    I'm ok with these.
     
  6. arnisador

    arnisador Sr. Grandmaster

    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    44,560
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Terre Haute, IN
    Lots to like...but, e.g., where do they draw the line on the 2nd Amendment? Can I have a flamethrower? A tank? It does say firearms but that could be more explicit. Also...no registration? That'd be a blow to crime-fighting, wouldn't it?
     
  7. Bob Hubbard

    Bob Hubbard Retired

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    • Founding Member
    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    47,249
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Land of the Free
    My take, and this is mine, is that the term in the 2nd is "arms" and not "guns", so yes, you can have a flamethrower. Just like you can have a beer. The 'is it criminal' part would be in how you use it. Just like the beer. Registration really only does 2 things: Makes it harder for law-abiding folks to get em, and adds a revenue stream to the government to pay for the clerk collecting the fee. Criminals don't register their guns.

    Means I can buy 10 gazillion rounds of ammo. As long as I store it safely and securely, and don't try to rob a bank, over throw the government, obtain my neighbors car by force or fire them willy nilly into the air, it's no one's business but mine.

    Means I can own a tank, though driving it on the highway wouldn't be ok because it would damage the road.

    Of course, this would require that I as a citizen step up and be a responsible one. Which is the core, IMO, of the platform, the Responsible Citizen. It's not the governments or corporations job to care for me, it's mine.
     
  8. Bob Hubbard

    Bob Hubbard Retired

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    • Founding Member
    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    47,249
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Land of the Free
    Now, my read of section 1 is this:
    People are responsible for their actions, and government will stay out of their business. Meaning, marry who you like, we're not going to record it, or give you perks for it, or deny you things because of it. Pray or don't, we don't care. What you do and who you do in the bedroom are your business, not ours. Abortion is your decision, not ours. Respect others rights and property, and we're here to help sort it out and get fair restitution, but otherwise you're responsible for your stuff and your own protection.

    A simplified summation which may contain my own interpretation.


    Now the challenge is, generations who have been told the government will take care of them, and protect them. If you (or I) as a parent are always there to protect our kids, pay their bills when they don't have money, give them a place to sleep when they don't have anywhere, feed them when they don't have food, stop people from beating them up, and so forth, we might say we're being good parents. But. When do they learn to stand on their own? We have a society that expects the government to bail them out, citizen and corporation. They expect the government to subsidize drugs, food, rent, heat, and businesses. As a result we've lost much of our independence, our self-responsibility. I see the Libertarian approach to be a step back towards that, away from the coddle of either major party. While it's not perfect, I think we as citizens and business owners need to take more personal responsibility and rely less on the government. (and no, not looking to disband the police or go back to bucket brigades for fire control) ;) I also think if the government were smaller, and kept to it's strict Constitutional guide, our taxes would be significantly lower, food and fuel and medical care much more affordable, and the dollar much stronger. That's reflected in more of the LP platform as reading ahead also indicates.
     
  9. WC_lun

    WC_lun Senior Master

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Location:
    Kansas City MO
    I like some of the LP's view on things, but I think it could be taken to extremes very easily. While I strongly agree in personal responsibility, sometimes people find themselves in situations where they need assistance. For those that contribute to society,I think those safety nets should be there so they recieve that assistance, so they can once again become productive members of society. Under the Libertarian platform it seems those safety nets would be stripped away, leaving churches and other charities to carry that load. Our own history is proof they cannot do that. I'm all for no-nonsense, common sense government, but I also believe compassion must be part of a government's policies and I do not believe the Libertarians would support the compassion part. When I read thier platform, it also struck me as somewhat Ayn Randish.
     
  10. Makalakumu

    Makalakumu Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    13,887
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Location:
    Hawaii
    It would seem to me, that if we let a bunch of rednecks have flamethrowers, we may very well speed up human evolution.
     
  11. pgsmith

    pgsmith Master of Arts

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,589
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Texas
    If you were a redneck, you'd know that you could go down to any large ranch supply or feed store and buy a flame thrower. They're used in the southwest to help keep the fence-lines and irrigation ditches clear, and to burn spines off the prickly pear for the cattle to eat during drought. :)
     
  12. Makalakumu

    Makalakumu Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    13,887
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Lol! I'm from MN where rednecks dream about using flamethrowers for clearing snow!

    Anyway, great example of how freedom works!
     
  13. Carol

    Carol Crazy like a...

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    20,311
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    NH
    :D

    Oh those three little words I never get tired of hearing.....

    "snow removal included"

    *blissful sigh*
     
  14. Bob Hubbard

    Bob Hubbard Retired

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    • Founding Member
    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    47,249
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Land of the Free
    While most parties platforms have some 'extreme' views, I think they are necessary as part of the political negotiation process.

    If I say "Eliminate all unemployment coverage" for example, and you counter with "No, people need that", we will negotiate and find a reasonable time frame to help people down on their luck, without becoming a leech on society. If I say "let people have a year" and you say "no, make it 2", 3 months will never be the limit. I use this as an example only mind you. What I've seen of the "official party platform" is that most candidates deviate a bit from it. Johnson is a bit off from the 'party line', as was Barr last year, and Badnarick before.
     
  15. Bob Hubbard

    Bob Hubbard Retired

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    • Founding Member
    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    47,249
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Land of the Free
    primacord.
     
  16. Bill Mattocks

    Bill Mattocks Sr. Grandmaster

    • Martial Talk Alumni
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    2,589
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Michigan
    The major issues I had with the Libertarian Party platform remain the same.

    1.2 Personal Privacy

    Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.


    I disagree and will always disagree with that policy. I won't pollute this thread with a long-running, anger-filled debate over how wonderful / evil pot is. I'm against legalization, my opinion only, end of discussion.


    3.3 International Affairs

    American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.


    Naive and foolish, not to mention unimplementable.

    Libertarians are, finally, idealists. Idealism doesn't work. I support many of the goals of Libertarianism, but I can't accept the two listed above. For that reason, I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings. I do vote for Libertarian candidates, primarily because I realize that even if elected, the will not be able to implement the two points I object to, so no harm.

    And I get tired beyond belief of my GOP, DNC, and LP friends urging me to "Engage, don't walk away! Fight from the inside!" No, YOU fight from the inside. I say a pox on all their houses. Screw the major parties and everything related to them. The reason there are more independents than members of any political party in the USA (and that trend is accelerating), is because the political parties are led by criminal, lying, self-serving, bastards. Period. I don't support lying criminal bastiches. Not now, not ever.
     
  17. Makalakumu

    Makalakumu Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    13,887
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Location:
    Hawaii
    The next war between major countries will be thermonuclear. The imperial posturing that is promoted by both the parties in power bring that closer and closer. Non-interventionism is the only real way to step back from the brink. Non-interventionism is the most realistic and practical solution to our foreign policy issues. It's also the cheapest.

    Out of all the libertarian beliefs' this one attracts me the most.
     
  18. elder999

    elder999 El Oso de Dios!

    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    9,796
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
    Nah. There may be a "limited tactical exchange," and it may bot be "major countries" that do it, but "major countries" who have nukes aren't going to just start lobbing them at each other: we're completely capable of winning that kind of war with China, and China knows it. We're completely capable of winning that kind of war with Russia, and Russia knows it.

    Both countries know that we know it, too.

    THere really are no other big players that you could identify as "major countries." I could see an exchange between India and Pakistan, or India and China-and the Middle East offers another situation, with Israel and Iran, unless something is done to maintain the status quo, or ensure balance, and that restoration of balance is likely to be quite conventional in nature.

    "Non-inteventionism," in spite of its appeal, is quite beyond us now, I'm afraid. THe world has expectations. More importantly, we have to protect our corporate interests abroad, as we have for the last 105 years-what you fear is as inevitable as a year round ice-free Northwest Passage at this point: we can do nothing to prevent it.

    It probably won't be thermonuclear, though-no corporate profit in that.....:lfao: Seriously, dude, Raytheon? Nothing but pure "Operation Iraqi Freedom" profit....:lfao:.....drop a nuke, though-no profit there at all, really....
     
  19. Makalakumu

    Makalakumu Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

    • MartialTalk Mentor
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    13,887
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Consider WWI. No profit in it. Bad all around for everyone...including the destruction of massive amounts of wealth. Yet insanity rules the day.
     
  20. elder999

    elder999 El Oso de Dios!

    • LifeTime Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    9,796
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
    Let's consider WWI: dismissing the effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic, the WWI post-war years sqw the rise of American military and economic superiority-in fact, prior to WWI, the U.S. was in a recession, and people like Theodore Roosevelt were actually shopping for a war as a boost to the economy.When war came-even before the U.S. entered, U.s. corporations were making huge proftis: DuPont for gunpowder, U.S. steel, Bethelehem Steel, and American Sugar, just to name a few, made hundreds of millions of circa 1920 dollars-the equivalent of billions today. England gained (or solidified) territory in Palestine, Arabia and German colonies in Africa. Setting the stage for WWII, Krupp made huge profits throughout the war, and did not suffer through the interwar 20's and 30's, continuing to do business with American companies and businessmen, like Prescott Bush.

    In fact, periods of extended recession or depression have always been alleviated by war-with profit for all who aren't fighting in it, and some who are. WWI was followed by a period of abundance, then a recession/"Great Depression" which was only ended by another war.

    I'd say look for a nice profitable war sometime next year, following the start of the recession in the first quarter.123
     

Share This Page