How about we use the comments to condense this into talking points?

The legalization of drugs seems to be, in my admittedly brief experience as a Libertarian, to be the most divisive aspect of Libertarian philosophy. My wife and mother, as well as others I have spoken to, would likely consider themselves Libertarians if not for this single issue. It is frustrating to me that we as a society are so caught up in our late 20th/early 21st century paradigm that we cannot bring ourselves to consider earnestly the consequences of government control on this issue (as well as others). It is absolute anathema to most people to think of legalizing drugs. When I told my good friend, who served as best man at my wedding, that I had become a Libertarian, he simply smiled and said, "Drugs and hookers, huh?". I suppose it all comes back to the fact that no person or government has the right to tell me what I can or cannot put in my body. It is especially sad to me that these suffering people are being denied legal access to effective, affordable medication, without which they may die.

Give Democrats their due. They fight along side libertarians on war, drugs, abortion, the death penalty, civil liberties, censorship, sexual freedom and a host of other issues a whole lot more than Republicans. Here, many of them stood by us on a pretty radical position.

You have no evidence that they deliberately put up their most liberal members on purpose, merely in order to kill the bill and keep the issue alive. Have you considered that those are the members with the least to lose if they speak on this issue? I'm not willing to accept your conclusion that some manuevering took place simply based on your vague assertions about familiarity with politics.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat but a Libertarian. But I think the Libertarians give the Republicans way too much slack on issues like the war and spending. Wake up, fellow libertarians, and start realizing that there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests.

I agree that frequently Libertarians give Republicans too much slack. However, check out my media record and you will see this is not true of me.

I also went out of my way to applaud Democrats for what they did accomplish. However, in this case, Democrats seemed to place political opportunism ahead of real needs of the people. This is one thing which seperates us from Republicans and Democrats alike, as once again we have demonstrated that we are "the party of principle".

Yes, drug legalization has drawn people into the party. I work at Wal-Mart as a cartpusher (19, first job) and I talk to the door greeters, cashiers, managers and fellow cartpushers about the philosophy in the break room and hand out Worlds Smallest Political Quizzes.

I've mainly seen people score Centrist or [middle of the pyramid] Libertarian and in very rare cases, liberal.

My older friends Dee and Felix (both black and door greeter) have been converted to Libertarianism from the Democrats. I explained to them that the big two want to continue wasting money on the war on drugs and putting non-violent people in jail, which means rapists, murderers and child molesters get out on early release.

Felix is about 65 or so, so I thought he would be hard to convince -- but he listened with an open mind and we agreed on many things ( lowertaxes, social security being voluntary, drug war). Just letting the LP know that the younger Libertarians are doing their share for liberty in Oklahoma.

(Both black and door greeter)*

Meaning a lot more people from the African American community can relate more to the LP platform than how they are stereotyped of being all hardcore democrat.

Just like I've said, the good ol' Republicans. The ones who TALK small government, personal freedom, personal responsibility, etc., yet they want to tell you how to have sex, who to have sex with, what TV shows you can watch, what you can hear on the radio, what you can read or look at, etc.

Also as noted the GOP, the "SMALL GOVERNMENT" GOP, is the founders and expanders of the modern drug war. In fact, the drug war is the second biggest federal program behind the military, which is usually is a shopping-spree day for the Repugs as well.

Also, Allen Jenkins, remember it's also wonderful Druggie Limbaugh who said that Libertarians "only want to smoke pot and look at child-porn in the privacy of their own homes". (This is the same person who once said marijuana users should get 30 years in prison, then turned around and claimed his own drug problem was his personal problem and nobody elses.)

I am one of the few Libertarians who sympathize with the Dems way more then Repugs because the Dems fight way more for social issues that I hold near and dear (since I am socially liberal and will never change that). As for fiscal issues, though it would seem the Dems spend way more money, at least it is to help people have an income, to help people get an education, to provide people with health care, etc. I know all of these are unconstitutional things, but I would rather have that then Repugs who try to tell us to "pull our own weight", but STILL take up to 40% of our money from us to spend on waging wars either here, or against the "brown-person of the week" somewhere, then pull the whole "defense is the only thing our government should be spending money on" BS with us.

BTW Terry Everett should "leave the country" since HE is the one who doesn't love what this country is all about.

Every Rep who voted against this amendment needs to lose in 2006 -- at very least every Rep from a state that has either legalized medical mj or shown favor to that position in multiple opinion polls.

Our messsage to these would-be rulers who OUGHT to be humble representatives: "Have you no decency?"

Let's start now. It can be done.

How could representatives from those 10 states even vote against something like this? It wouldn't be hard to take this issue and use the old "Incumbent Killer Strategy" for '06 on a few of these people, I believe...especially in the states where such medicinal marijuana has been approved.

The best way to change anothers views is to cite cold hard facts, and delve deep into what they are passionate about. I converted my friend, Tracy, into 'libertarianism' by bringing up the fact they promote less government control-and branching off from there.

Like Brian, I'm a teenager and am trying to do my part in the least annoying and most productive way. I can't change a liberal friend's point of view by saying "Yeah, well, my party's better you pinko commie!"

My advice: make friendships/alliances with others in different political parties. Admit when they're right on something, then slowly relate it to why it's similar to a Libertarian's point of view.

Other party members banned together with ours to try and pass this legislation. Why not learn from them?

Politics1 has Jerry Beck(who?) and Gary Nolan as potential people interested in the LP nomination.

Does anyone know if Aaron Russo wants to take another crack at it in 2008? Think Karen Kwiatowski would be interested in running under the LP banner in 2008?

June,

E-mail me at blacknight_80751@yahoo.com and I'll let you know why I think Aaron Russo will not run for the LP nomination in 08.

BTW I was his Scheduling Cordinator
Chris Bennett
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyconsulting/

Both Dems and Republicans disgust me! They could care less about Liberty or True Freedom!

[quote]

The best way to change anothers views is to cite cold hard facts, and delve deep into what they are passionate about. I converted my friend, Tracy, into 'libertarianism' by bringing up the fact they promote less government control-and branching off from there.
[End Quote]

Erika, laudable thought.

I've been attempting this for a number of years now. I will admit that I've become jaded with the failure of my attempts.

Mostly on online forums, I'd take a post by a person and literally pick out the holes in it - I'd even cite sources, evidence, links and then build on that and say why we need to go back to our roots.

The classic reaction to most of my attempts have been 'Straw man arguments' (for example, the one Limbaugh brought up about "libertarians simply want to smoke pot and watch kiddie-porn".)

Over the years, I've varied my attempts - sometimes being blunt and ourtight frank N honest - other times going for the more subtle approach.

No go - none are so blind as those who will not see.

For years, I was pretty much a hard core liberal. Untill I had a few harsh experiences with a libertarian. And that was how I was "converted" LOL

So perhaps there's hope yet. I know that I will not stop - but I grow weary talking to people who just don't want to listen.

Greetings from a soldier for Liberty here in cold Upstate New York :-)

People currently rumored or expressed interest to be running for LP nom in 2008 (Politics1)

Lance Brown
Gary Nolan
Michael Badnarik
Jerry Beck

I like Badnarik but I feel that if he runs again, like Harry Browne did, he's just going to end up with less votes than the first time.

Why not Aaron Russo, Ed Thompson, Karen Kwiatowski, Judge Jim Gray or Richard Mack as our LP candidate? All would be excellent nominees.

I want Aaron Russo to try it again. HE would've been our best bet in 04!

I think we need to launch a full frontal attack to the extent that ordinary people just start running on the libertarian ticket, even if it's just as paper candidates. We should start costing the Dems and Reps races on a national scale. So far, most of the victories have been with town and city councils; let's bump that up to state senators, judgeships, sheriff, you name it. When we do decide to run, I think we should stay away from cross endorsements; they always come with a price: having to compromise if and when you win. That means dolling out perks and patronage.
The old arguments: 'I'm not experienced', 'I know nothing about politics', etc. really don't matter. We have a lot of experienced people in office who have become so adept at robbing the taxpayer blind to keep themselves and their friends in high level jobs.
Let's start sharing information. Let's start sending $20 to the campaign of any libertarian who is running for some office - even if that libertarian is in some other state. What would happen if a million people each sent $1 to somebody's campaign? Do we have a million people in the entire paid membership of the Libertarian Party? Then we need to work on that, too. Let's get into the habit of visiting the websites of all the state affiliates to see what's going on elsewhere in the country. If you're fed up, you need to stop watching American Idol and start watching the efforts of the Institue for Justice, the Free State Project, and liberty minded folks everywhere.
That's my soapbox.
"Rage against the machine."

Whatever we do, remember this slogan:

Never Send a Purist to do a Man's Job.

Thus Sprach CrowleyThustra.

I'm a regular guy considering running for office as a Libertarian, but I don't know if the party has room for me. I believe in low taxes, sure, but I feel the rich need to pay more than the poor, not "same across the board." I also don't believe fully-automatic weapons should be legal without heavy regulation. Does that disqualify me from being a Libertarian, even though I believe in downsizing Social Security, cutting foreign aid to the Middle East, and all the rest of the core Libertarian ideals? Can the party afford NOT to be a big-tent party? It seems like it only caters to purists. I want to run for governor someday but don't know if I could get the party's approval when I'm 70% Libertarian and 30% Democrat. Your thoughts?

Toddrymofo,

I'm intrigued that you want to run as a Libertarian rather than as a Democrat. Why is that, when you know that you'd have a better chance of winning as a Democrat? In other words, while I applaud your willingness, why do you choose to make it harder on yourself, given the fact that the LP has little or no local political machinery at this time to support your candidacy and given the fact that you have these issues with Libertarian ideology? I'm not criticising. I'm just trying to understand your reasons.

Also, how do you feel about "the pledge"?

Regarding fully-automatic weapons: Why do you feel that the 2nd amendment gives government the right to regulate those firearms, and why doesn't the same authority also apply to smaller arms?

Finally, would you run to win, and if so, why do you want to be Governor of your state?

I think their is room for some amount of compromise. But your ideas sound alot less than 70% libertarian. Speaking as a member I wouldn't support any candidate that was for wealth redistribution and for gun control. Libertarians don't want to downsize Social Security we want to elimanate it. I and many libertarians are not going to support you unless you can explain how and in what way are we wrong both on the legal and pratical on the issues of wealth redistribtion and gun control. I've found that the three biggest issues to most libertarins are 1) Taxes and budget (within costitutional enumereted powers)2)2nd amendment being interpeted to origianal content.3)Ending the war on drugs. I dont't think you can disagree on two of the three and expect to run on a libertarian ticket.
Many have said the principles of the party has kept us to our 3rd party status and if we would just except compromise and except a big tent party mentality we would have more success. I say that these principles are the only thing that has allowed our party to exist for over thirty years. The countless third partys tried this populist approach and they no longer exist and they failed to break into the two party game. These principles are what define us as a party. It is not the principles that need changin but our stratgies. I agree with what libertarian tv said in a previous blog. We need to learn how to win local campaigns we must do a better job selling our ideals. We must never let our princples go.

Well, I guess you guys are right. There's no room in the party for me. Unfortunately, there's no room in the Democratic party for me, either, which leaves only the Reform party. Problem solved.

Toddrymofo:
I see where you are coming from. I agree with a good majority of the libertarian ideals however there are a few issues in which I disagree. One of those issues is gun control so I would like to respond to Libertarian TV's comment about the 2nd amendment here as well.

First of all I support peoples right to hunt and also the right of people to protect themselves and their families, whether that's with a gun or a baseball bat. I agree with the saying that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". However, I feel that as a country, we need to reexamine the 2nd amendment.

Try to visualize the following example: Put all of the weapons that mankind has developed on a continuum. On the left side of this continuum, place the least dangerous weapons like bats, sticks, and other weapons like them that anyone could get. Then on the right side of this continuum put the most dangerous weapons that you can think of like nuclear bombs, biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Then, try to put different types of guns in there as well. I'd say that a fully automatic high-powered rifle is much more dangerous than a pistol. The reason being that you can take out a lot more people very quickly with an automatic weapon than you could with a six-shooter. After this continuum is complete, try to draw a line at some point. A line that says anything to the right of this is illegal for people to have, and anything to the left is legal. We need some way to quantify how potentially destructive a weapon is and create a threshold as to what we as a society will tolerate.

The thing that attracts me most to this party is the principle that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt or interfere with anyone else’s rights or liberty. This is why I think drugs should be legal, and that prostitution should be legal. If it's not hurting anyone else, then nobody has the right to tell you that you can't do it. However, if this principle were applied with no exceptions, it would be, for example, legal for my next-door neighbor to have a nuclear bomb in his basement. As long as he doesn't detonate it, he's not hurting anyone right?

Of course this is an extreme example, but I think that by illustrating extreme examples of a problem, we can gain a better insight into the gray areas of it. I'm sure no one reading this wants their neighbors to have the right (as far fetched as it may be) to have a nuclear bomb in their basement. It is debatable as to where this line needs to be drawn, however, it does need to be there. This in my opinion is the essence of the gun control debate.

Okay, here's where I stand. Tell me if I have a chance in hell as a libertarian governor.

No public education - all private schools

Downsize Social Security so it only applies to starving people

Fully automatic weapons legal with a permit, all lesser weapons legal without a permit.

Legalize gay marriage and polygamy and cut all monetary benefits given to married couples

Minimize foreign aid, giving it out only to stop people from starving

Strictly defensive military action; limit Presidential war powers

Legalize all drugs but tax them heavily as one significant source of revenue

Legalize non-FDA-approved drugs

Lower the drinking age to 18

Abolish Selective Service - no draft ever

No Social Security cards, no national ID card

One ID number is given to you, your state citizenship membership number (which implies national citizenship)

Pro-choice, but zero public funding of abortion, contraception, stem-cell research, or other reproductive products

No partial-birth abortion

Tiered tax system that takes more from rich people than poor people, but is still lower than current tax levels for all - rich and poor alike

Pull out of Iraq

Reform the UN but don't withdraw from it - keep the UN HQ on American soil to encourage Europe to adopt libertarian principles

Withdraw troops from all foreign stations; send them back when countries adopt libertarian principles

Cut welfare and merge it and Medicare together with Social Security to make one umbrella program that stops starvation and rejects ageist preference

Repeal the Patriot Act

If you take issue with any of my points, please speak up. I may have to join the Reform Party.

what is "The Pledge"?

What about that liberal bias in the press? I mean "What newspaper reported it in the USA?". Not many. One notable exception is the Times Herald Record in Middletown, NY. That paper was one of the few to report it, and on the front page no less. The New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe took a pass. I congratulate the Record's Beth Quinn and Dave Richardson for speaking out about this mockery of justice. If the Liberals won't do anything about this, maybe we should. The Green Party is pushing for impeachment. We've worked with them in the past when we shared common ground. This is one of those areas. We pushed for Clinton's Impeachment. If he deserves it, so does Bush. Remember, Clinton lied but nobody died, Bush lied and thousands dies.

toddrymofo, I sure as heck would vote for you. These are my only issues though:

Partial-Birth Abortion: I know this kind of abortion is still a big issue with even those who are pro-choice, but I stil say keep it. If you truly can't keep it, I say make sure you bring in RU-486 and the Morning After pill (if they aren't one and the same) so any "abortions" are taken care of before the birth actually happens. Also, what's your view of "Roe v Wade"?

As for all of the "charity" stuff with the government, I feel almost all of what you set limits on could be taken care of through private charities, but as long as the bar is never (repeat: NEVER) raised to allow more and more people into these programs (which is how these have all spiraled out of control to begin with) I could live with them.

Also, what would you cut the taxes down to? It looks as though if you tax all drugs, that could help pay for the limited government we all here would really enjoy, so you really don't need an income or sales tax of any kind.

That's my take. What's yours?

The libertarian movement is a long journey. There are many people out there, like toddrymofo, who will travel with us for many miles, but they have a different destination. We need to accept them!

When we get to the point that taxes are still progressive but much lower and permits are only needed for fully automatics, then we part company. Until that point, we are traveling in the same direction. So hop on board my friend!

What State do you live in toddrymofo?

Oh never mind. I see your tax idea, which is a very scaled down progressive tax.

I live in California but am preparing to return to my old home of Oregon, and will run for governor there someday, I hope. I don't know if I'll win; I just want to get into the debates and be heard. The reason I am returning to Oregon is to avoid the sales tax. Oregon is one of two states without a sales tax (I think Florida is the other one), and I am committed to slashing the high property tax the state uses to make up the difference. Bush wants to impose a national sales tax. I say impeach the bastad.

My view of Roe v. Wade is that it should be upheld. I don't know how libertarian my view is, but I feel that abortion is a right that should not be relegated to the control of the states. Roe v. Wade preserves the right to abort in all 50 states; however, it is based on outdated medical technology info and should be updated. I have no problem with RU-486 and the morning-after pill.

"Of course this is an extreme example, but I think that by illustrating extreme examples of a problem, we can gain a better insight into the gray areas of it."

An interesting way of looking at things. A rather political way, I would say. You sure you're not a politician Adam?

To say that the best way to gain insight into a subject is to consider the most outlandishly "possible" scenario and go from there is utterly ridiculous. That's why we have welfare, social security, the drug war - not to mention the reason we are in Iraq. Wow, it's amazing people actually think that way. Guess what Adam? Freedom doesn't come without a price. There are risks with being free, but at some point, you have to take off your training wheels and take some chances. If everyone thought the way you do, they wouldn't leave their houses. Just think of all the terrible things that can happen to you. Oh darn, I forgot the house is a dangerous place also. A lot of bad things can happen to you in your house. I've got an idea, why don't I figure out a way to force all people to live in houses, but very little ones so as to minimize the risks associated with living in a house. Makes perfect sense to me. That's where you're logic takes us.

Have you ever owned a gun? Well if you did, you would know they don't exactly give them away. [Unless that is you join the military. Then they not only give them to everyone, they make sure you know how to use them. And you know what? They really like fully automatic weapons! So in other words, only people working for the government should be allowed to possess automatic weapons.] I just spent $800 dollars for a new 45. I'm not exceedingly wealthy, so that kind of money gets my attention. I'm very pleased with the gun so I don't regret the purchase at all. But where I'm going with this Adam is that $800 dollars buys you a 45. How much would a nuclear weapon cost? And how would you build it in the first place? All that nonsense about it's easy to develop a nuclear weapon is pure bunk! Go ask Saddam how easy it is. The idea that "the guy down the street" could possess a nuclear weapon is just utterly ridiculous. The only people really interested in possesing these types of weapons and capable of creating them are politicians. And the only ones that have ever ordered their use are politicians. If you really believe that guns don't kill people, people do, then this should be as obvious as the nose on your face. Most violent crimes are crimes of passion. A single bullet can kill you just as easily as 100 of them. And the chance that some "terrorist" is going to drive down the street spraying bullets everywhere is very unlikely. And if they did, wouldn't you want your fellow citizens to be able to respond? Or should we just wait for the police to show up and pick up all the bodies. Maybe I'm starting to see what you're talking about now. A lot of defenseless people could be killed by a bad person with a bad weapon. That would definitely increase the cost of body bags. Now I see why you wouldn't want those kind of weapons legal. After all, then you would have every Tom, Dick and Harry running around with AK47's and M16, instead of just criminals and government employees.

Your logic is extremely flawed Adam. I hope you don't think that way about a lot of things in life. If you do, you must be a very stressed person.

You asked what the pledge is, toddrymofo. It's a requirement for people to sign who want to become paid members of the party and be eligible to vote for party officers, changes in platform, bylaws, etc. It's also known as the non-aggression principle. Basically, signers commit to not initiating force to achieve social or political goals. It's also the basis for nearly all libertarian thought.

I understand what your position is on gun control, but my question to you was specifically about the 2nd amendment because I wanted to know how you feel about interpreting the Constitution literally. As a reminder, the 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The reason I'm asking is because most libertarians believe that the Constitution should be taken seriously in its entirety, and not just focusing on those aspects that Congress or the Courts or the President have isolated to defend their policies and rulings. Thus, since the 2nd amendment states flat out that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, we take this to be a blanket restriction on all government. Our position is solidified by the 9th and 10th amendments, which say respectively, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (9th) and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th).

In short, if a power isn't delegated to the government, then the government is not permitted to assume it. But if a right isn't enumerated, it's still a right.

That's why we say that the right to bear arms shouldn't even be on the legislative table so long as the 2nd amendment remains part of the supreme law of the land, and it applies to all arms, including automatic weapons.

So back to my original question: how do YOU apply the 2nd amendment to your stand regarding handguns and automatic weapons?

I am interpreting the wording of the 2nd Amendment literally: "a WELL-REGULATED militia." Some people say that that means "well-prepared," I disagree.

Mark Avellino:

It's obvious that you have some strong feelings about gun control, and I'm not quite sure where you were going with the small house metaphor. You have also misinterpreted my logic.

You seem to have a big problem with my nuclear bomb example. OK, lets tone it down to say a regular old-fashioned bomb. In your view is it OK for your neighbor to possess one of these? Would you feel comfortable in your home knowing that your neighbor has a 4 tons of TNT in his basement just waiting to go off at his will? I don't know about you but I really don't want anyone in my neighborhood to have a bomb in their basement. That's not big government intruding on your rights, that's common sense.

You also challenge my quote: "Of course this is an extreme example, but I think that by illustrating extreme examples of a problem, we can gain a better insight into the gray areas of it." What this means is that with almost every issue that is being debated, the answer almost always lies somewhere in the middle, and not directly on either side. You say that this is a rather political way to look at things, and I say you are exactly right.

Reasonable people can be on two complete opposite sides of any given issue. The only way that our society will make any progress resolving these issues is if both of those sides can look at the other and try to understand where they are coming from, and how to reach a common ground.

Your last sentence: "Your logic is extremely flawed Adam. I hope you don't think that way about a lot of things in life. If you do, you must be a very stressed person." You are right, my view on things does tend to add stress to my life. However, I'd rather be a little stressed and see the world in all it's different shades of gray than be relaxed and see the world falsely through a black and white lens, ignoring everything in between. Ignorance is bliss.

I have been a libertarian in principle for over ten years and have been hiding out in the republican party because I thought that they were closer to my ideals on low taxes and small government. I call dem's tax and spend heavy and the new crop of rep's tax and spend lite.
Let's go with the absurd notion mentioned earlier. My absurd notion is "it is a priviledge to drive", this is what our government tells us. Next what will it be a priviledge to ride a bicycle, or why not a priviledge to breathe air. So yes if my neighbor wants a nuke, the only thing I believe is that my neighbor would have to tell me he has a nuke and I would then have the option to move.
Now abortion is a sticky issue, Libertarians are not pro-choice, I would have to say a majority are but there are the minority that believe in the unborn childs right to life, if we use the "force" principle, we could be hurting the fetus. It all depends on the individual and where they believe life starts. Myself if it conceived in the womb its a child, in a petrie dish for stem cells it is not. (I know fine line to walk) I believe in personal responsiblity and if someone gets pregnant it is their own fault for not taking the proper precautions.
Now on tomedicinal marijuana, my grandmother took the stuff when she had inoperable cancer in her jaw. She said it was the only drug that helped her. So now I am a firm proponent of the laws.

One more item, I would not say a "Victim of Compassionate Conservatism" No one is a victim unless they choose to be in this instance because all those politicians were elected by "the victims". Instead of "victim" I would have used betrayed, snookered, cheated, scammed, etc...Personally I feel I was betrayed by the republicans.

toddrymofo...one more question. What is your definition of a "militia"?

"Militia" means armed citizenry, whether it is organized or not.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the right to regulate guns. The second amendment simply recognizes the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. It cannot be any clearer.

Solenopsis:
I can't say I agree with you on the "neighbor with a nuke" example, but I do agree with you on abortion. The fact is that no one on this planet knows when exactly life begins, or where to draw that line. I would argue that line is getting pushed back every time a premature baby is born and survives, which is happening more and more every day. Who knows where medical technology is going to bring us. Perhaps in the future, a baby just a few days into term could survive outside the womb. It sounds like science fiction today, however tomorrow it could be science fact.

It is my feeling that the only clear place to draw this "life begins" line is when the sperm meets the egg. When that happens that fetus is a human being and should have the same rights and liberties as the rest of us. And in applying the "force" principle, we should not allow that baby to be aborted. The only exceptions to that rule that I can see are if a woman’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy or if the woman is raped. A woman has the right to life just as much as that baby and that needs to be respected. If a woman is raped, she has not chosen to take on the risk of becoming pregnant. Although, if that woman does not want the child I would rather see her give the baby up for adoption, however, I still feel she has the right to abort the pregnancy because she didn't chose to risk becoming pregnant.

Quoting Solenopsis: "I believe in personal responsibility and if someone gets pregnant it is their own fault for not taking the proper precautions." I couldn't agree more. There are so many options out there for birth control, that there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence is the only sure fire way to never become pregnant. However, if a woman does choose to have sex and she does not want to become pregnant there are a plethora of options out there. Many argue that birth control is not 100% reliable, and this is true. However, if you use two forms such as the pill and condoms, the risk of becoming pregnant becomes minuscule.

In conclusion, I could consider myself “pro-choice”. However, I feel that the choice is whether or not the woman chooses to have sex. If she does choose to have sex, then she is risking becoming pregnant. Fortunately, there are ways to minimize this risk if a few cheap, simple, precautions are taken.

If one believes Life begins at conception, which is what I believe, then they must be against all abortions.

You cannot say Life begins when the fetus begins to look human. You have to be either Black or White on this issue. You cannot be in the grey area.

Either you believe Life begins at Conception, or you believe Life begins at Birth.

I have more respect for one who is consistent accross the field than for someone who changes his or her beliefs according to circumstances.

By the way I'm just randomly giving my opinion here. I'm not addressing a previous post.

Toddrymofo
I must say I would vote for you. I do have a couple of issues with your postions but overall I think you are pro liberty and you would get my vote. Be careful with how much you would tax drugs.Overtaxation would cause the blackmarket to stay in place and the violence that would stay with it.

Hi toddrymofo,

Thanks for answering my questions. First, I want you to know that before I became a Libertarian, I was a liberal Democrat. So I appreciate where you're coming from on the issues you've described. I agree with Matt...I would probably vote for you too. Having said that, I want to review a few of issues with you, if that's okay with you.

First, the gun control issue. You emphasized that you take the Constitution literally when it says, "well-regulated." I'm glad you prefer a literal interpretation. I also agree with your definition of the word "militia." In essence, you and I and everyone else in this country are "militia." I just wish you would apply the same literal reading to the entire 2nd amendment, not just to those two words, "well-regulated."

The part that you are skipping over is the word "infringe." The American Heritage Dictionary defines infringe as, "To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate." Merriam Webster says it's, "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another" and it goes on to cite the 2nd amendment as an example(!).

However, there's an even more important point than the word infringe. The 2nd amendment was written in 18th Century English. Their usage was slightly different from ours. If I were to "translate" what the 2nd amendment says into 21st Century English, my translation would read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." It would *not* read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, except if the government has good reason to regulate it."

There's a libertarian author named J. Neil Schulman who wrote a fantastic article on this point. You can read it at http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html. In short, he asked a school administrator in Los Angeles to suggest an expert he could contact about a question regarding American usage of the English language, and the administrator recommended Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."

So Schulman contacted Professor Copperud and wrote to him as follows:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

They had an extensive exchange, which included the following conclusion by the professor: "The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

Therefore, since the 10th amendment expressly prohibits the government from assuming powers not explicitly granted to it by the Constitution, the 2nd amendment prevents ANY legislative action from infringing on the right to bear arms. The phrase "well-regulated" doesn't even enter into the analysis as bearing any significant weight.

Others on this board are discussing the merits of a right to possession of nuclear weapons. While their topic is an excellent one, it must be pointed out that even if we were to decide that a right to bear a nuclear weapon as an "arm" was something that we wanted to restrict, it would not be enough to simply pass a law against it. We would have to amend the Constitution before any such restriction could be placed!

This is a critically important point. It is meaningless to speak of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land if we only respect those parts we agree with. Personally, for instance, I don't like the fact that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate copyrights and patents. Nevertheless, I must confess that were I to try to lead a fight to take away that power, I would have to do so via Constitutional amendment. To do anything less would be disrespectful to that great document.

Regarding your FICA proposal, "Downsize Social Security so it only applies to starving people," I'd like to point out that Social Security taxes are most harmful to the poorest people. Unlike the income tax (which is bad enough) there are no deductions for the social security tax. Between social security and medicare taxes, the poor's income is reduced by 15.25%, including the employer's share (which normally could be paid directly to the employee). When you're poor and struggling, a 15.25% tax is a head-blow in comparison the income tax. Your proposal essentially insures that the poor will carry the greatest burden.

Regarding foreign aid you wrote, "Minimize foreign aid, giving it out only to stop people from starving." There are two problems with this. First, our foreign aid never reaches starving people. It only reaches their governments, who filter most of it into their own pockets. Thus, your goal is never achieved. The second problem is that feeding the starving won't eliminate starvation. They're not starving for lack of food. Plenty of food flows in. They're starving for lack of freedom. Starving people are nearly always oppressed people. Thus, the foreign aid you tout actually helps their oppressors and harms the starving poor.

There are other stands you take that I have problems with as well, but these are the main points I wanted to raise.

Sorry, I was unclear. With Social Security, I meant downsize it so that the only benefits given out are those necessary to stop starvation. The starving and poor would not be taxed; this is where my limited income-redistribution is realized, since the rich would be required to fund this limited Social Security program that gives them no return benefits. Thus, the program ceases to be a government-run retirement investment program and becomes what FDR originally intended it to be, a safety-net for the downtrodden.

I'm new to politics and still working out all the kinks in my ideas here, but I appreciate the criticism. Your comments about foreign aid are logical. Thanks.

Brandon D:

We seem to be on the same page when it comes to where life begins. However, I don't think that as a society we could stand by when a woman is dying because the baby inside of her is killing her. I'm against abortion because of a respect for life, and that respect is applied equally to the baby that's growing in the womb and the woman who is bearing it. I feel that in the interest in saving a woman?s life, an abortion may be the only answer. Hopefully, in the future, medicine will have advanced to the point where an abortion is not necessary under those circumstances. However, with today?s technology, sometimes an abortion is the only thing that can save a woman's life.

With concern to the rape exception, I feel that a woman who goes through such a horrific experience should not be forced to carry a child if she never made the choice to risk becoming pregnant in the first place. As I mentioned in my previous post, I would encourage any woman who has become pregnant due to a rape to carry the child and then put him / her up for adoption should she not want to keep it. However, I don't think that anyone has a right to force her to carry that child, since she never made the choice to engage in the sex in the first place.

A woman who chooses to have sex is always taking the risk of becoming pregnant. As mentioned before, this risk can be minimized to virtually nil if a few simple precautions are taken. However, a woman who is forced into having sex should not have to carry a child if she never consented to taking on that risk in the first place.

Since the map color of the Democratic party is blue, and the Republican party is red, I hereby submit that the Libertarian map color is yellow. All in favor say aye.

Toddry - Several websites used yellow last year. With our anti-war stance, there could be some problems with the color, however.

An alternate suggestion has been purple. Geoffrey Neale was the first person who brought this up to me and the more I have thought about it, the better I like the idea.

The could apply to branding as well as state colors.

I don't see a problem with yellow, since it's not pro-war - it's pro-troops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't like Vietnam; the majority of the population sympathizes with the troops, rather than calling them babykillers, no?

toddrymofo, New Hampshire is a state without a sales tax as well. They also do not have a state income tax or take federal funding for roads. The last one means they can have a less-restrictive seat-belt law (it's only under 16ers that are required to wear them there), and I think they can also still have a .10 legal limit, and hell, I think they can still have a drinking age somewhere between 18-20 if they want to. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Oh, and toddry, the one thing I didn't catch was the "all private schools - no public schools" part. I am only for public education because I am a little bit worried about how many of our schools would be bought up by churches if they were ALL made private. If it were me, I would at least drop the Department of Education and turn public schools back over to the states.

However, if you can't live with public schools, I would suggest a federal law stating that for every religious school in a city or county, etc. there should be a NON-religious school there too. I can't justify making ALL kids somewhere go to a religious school if some of the parents do not agree with it.

Jon Lentz - New Hampshire sounds like heaven to me. 2nd best state in the union after Oregon heheh!

I was referring to yellow as in chicken or yellow bellied. As a political operative, I could certainly use that to my advantage were the opposition to use yellow.

Libertarians are strong on defense, just not on offence.

There might just be a slogan there!

Let me begin by describing myself. I am 19 years of age and I live in Michigan. I have no previous affiliations with any political party, though my views, while open, have been leaning towards middle-left. I think it is my openness, my belief that just about everything is subjective, that causes me to agree more with Dems that Reps. I came across the Libertarian Party by reading an online article about actor Drew Carey's political beliefs, being a Libertarian himself. I agreed with a lot of what he said in the article, so I checked out the LP. While reading the party's positions, I realized that the Libertarian Party might be for me.

Now, as to how this pertains to this thread, if you will, is that it seems to me, according to your posts, that the Libertarians do not exactly know what they believe. I have read posts by Libertarians here that favor each side of every political debate this country faces. If your views vary so much, how can I be sure what your party stances are?

a.l. townee: Welcome to the LP. I must say...your question is a new one. Most often we get the complaint that all of our candidates walk in lockstep and sound exactly like all of our other candidates. So to see someone criticizing us for being at odds with each other is a refreshing change.

I think it's fair to say that no party walks in lockstep, and the LP is no exception. If you want to understand the LP, understand where we agree.

We agree with the need for much smaller government, because we agree that the government monolith of today is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended. Paid party members agree with the need to forswear initiating force against others in all cases. Our bylaws require that party members who wish to pay their membership fees and vote for officers, platform, etc at our conventions must sign a statement swearing not to initiate force for political or social change.

The differences exist because people differ on how to achieve the objectives I've outlined above. That's all.

If you're looking for uniform thinking, join a cult. The real world isn't uniform, even in the LP.

We don't ask that anyone agree with us 100% of the time. If they agree with us only 75% of the time, we still ask for their support.

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

toddrymofo: Thanks for clarifying. Regarding Social Security, you wrote, "I meant downsize it so that the only benefits given out are those necessary to stop starvation. The starving and poor would not be taxed; this is where my limited income-redistribution is realized, since the rich would be required to fund this limited Social Security program that gives them no return benefits. Thus, the program ceases to be a government-run retirement investment program and becomes what FDR originally intended it to be, a safety-net for the downtrodden."

I strongly disagree with what you're proposing here. In essence, you are proposing that the poor should not have to plan for their own retirement. At least, that's the way the poor take it. We know from nearly 70 years of experience that the poor count on Social Security and thus make no plans to prepare for their own retirement, because they believe the government will take care of them. I think that a policy designed to create codependent tendencies among the poor is a bad idea on many levels.

Instead, I think we should be working to remove the barriers that stand in the way of the poor, nearly all of which are government created. First, I think we should stop taxing the working poor. If we truly want the poor to become self-sufficient, taxing them is a terrible idea. We should also remove the regulations that get in the way of the poor's own micro enterprises. These regulations are legion and mindbending. Most poor people do not have the sophistication and resources to even attempt to deal with the tax and regulatory structure as it stands. Thus, they find themselves continually thwarted by the government.

Our long-term goal should to remove the safety net entirely, which should be fairly easy after we remove the barriers that stand in the way of the working poor. I think our priority must be to remove the barriers first, then the safety net second. But until that happens, those poor who insist on living off the safety net should still be taxed at full rate. Only those poor who are willing to try to earn their own way should be freed from the oppressive nature of the government. With a combined policy like this in place, we would see two important things happen. First, we'd see a whole lot fewer poor people depending on the government for their living, and we'd see a whole lot less poverty. We'd also see a tremendous increase in wages, because as the supply of available labor for service-level jobs decreases (due to the poor starting their own micro enterprises), the price of labor is bound to increase. Hence, the minimum wage advocates will be forced to abandon their issue entirely.

Worst of all regarding your proposal is that you are sanctioning government enforced wealth transfers. In doing so, you open up Pandora's Box, because now anyone who wants to justify a wealth transfer program can do so based on your program's precedence, and you will have no valid argument to stop them. Your actions will have spoken louder than your words.

toddrymofo:

I just realized that there is another gigantic problem with your stand on the issues. About half of them are Federal issues. You're proposing to run for a statewide office, not a Federal office.

What you should do instead is to find out what Oregonians think are the most important issues inside their state, then derive your Libertarian-friendly solutions to those issues. Focus your campaign on the voters' issues, not your issues.

I have met Tom Cox, who is the leader of the Oregon LP, and I doubt that he or the other party leaders in that state will want to support you for a state-wide office based on a Federal issues campaign. I know I wouldn't.

I previously said I would vote for you, but until you address this problem, I'd be very hesitant to. And based on what you've said so far about Social Security, I'm even less inclined to. I want to support you, but you're going to have to do better than what you've said so far to earn my vote...if I lived in Oregon, that is.

Regarding welfare and money for the poor:

Most of us can agree that the welfare system in this country is an extremely inefficient system that does nothing to solve the long run problem of the poverty cycle. All it does is give poor people money to buy food and satisfy their short term needs without assisting them in getting on their own two feet and supporting themselves for the long term.

The best way we can get them out of the poverty cycle and make them become self-sufficient is by EDUCATING them. Education in my opinion is the answer to a great deal of the problems our country faces, including the poverty cycle in which so many Americans are stuck in, generation after generation. Quoting James Garfield "Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained."

If we want a much smaller democratic government run by the people, the people running it need to be educated. If we taught the poor how to farm instead of handing out corn, we would be doing them a much greater service, and would finally make headway in solving a problem that has plagued this country and this planet for a very long time.

a.l. townee,

It's good to see another Michigan LPer! If you'd like to get more involved, drop me an email at Marthos -at- yahoo -dot- com.

Libertarians want to see smaller government, that is the core belief that unites us all. It is possible to have Libertarians take up different sides. Libertarian A could want x smaller but keep y the same size. Libertarian B could want x left alone but shrink y. So they take opposite positions on x and y. However, they both agree that a through w should be smaller.

I hope that made some sense =)

Adam,

I wish I could agree with you, but I can't. Education is not the silver bullet. If it was, poverty would be gone by now. It's not like public schools haven't been touted for years as the cure for poverty. They have. They've failed.

Poverty is NOT caused by lack of education.

Poverty is caused by lack of freedom.

Stephen Gordon -

I know there are many people (i.e. - neocons) who say: "The best defense is a strong offense."

I say: "Those who believe that the best defense is a strong offense... don't believe in a strong defense."

I have heard some disturbing pro steal your money no matter how incompetent, even so incompetent that alot of families will pay the tax and pay a private tution on top of that, pro public school rehotric. Poor famlies can't afford to pay both a high school tax and a tution. These people are stuck in this incompetent school ,stuck in this cycle of poverty, because the public schools are not forced to compete.

I was wondering:

What do the Libertarian Party and Green Party both have in common?

Does the Libertarian Party have more in common with the Green Party or the Constitution Party?

I want to chime in on the abortion discussion from above.

I have not seen anybody argue the point that, by allowing the government to regulate what we do with our bodies for one issue (abortion), we invite the government to exert control over us for other "valid" issues, such as obesity, drug control, public policies, ridalin anyone?

I personally don't care when life begins. For me, the issue is all about personal control. I place the rights of the cognizant adult over the rights of the developing fetus.

To address the point that "You make a choice when you have sex, and must suffer the consequences" - you are basically deciding that abortion is a bad thing, and forcing full term pregnancy is a just punishment.

I don't feel the government should fund abortion, except when it is medically necessary and falls under the same category as other government subsidized emergency medicine (which should be limited).

If I had to draw a line somewhere, it would be that the government shall not decide under any circumstance when it is too late for an abortion. After birth, the child has rights. The government also shall not fund abortion, with the exception mentioned above.

The primary job the government has, as far medical intervention goes, is to protect us from fraudulent practices and uphold contracts.

As far as supporting a candidate, I made the following arguments to family members, including my wife (who voted for Badnarik). By picking the candidate from the two major parties (the lesser of two evils approach), you are supporting the direction that both major parties have led us, and continue to lead - down the toilet.

A libertarian in office does not mean all Libertarian platform ideals would be implemented right away. But the country would start to move in the right direction. When we have moved back to freedom and small government, then worry about the fringes and vote for someone else. But realize the Dems and Repubs will only continue to push the excess of government spending, control, and intervention in our personal lives.

I personally feel anybody that breaks from the D's or R's, even if their endpoint is not the same, should be welcomed if they are a step in the right direction.

Thank you all for your comments, Libertarian TV and others. Good thing I have another 30 years before I run for Governor of Oregon to get my act together. I may be a Democrat in the end, but if elected I will look out for the Libertarians. Later

I see the Libertarians taking a little bit out of the page of the Greens and Constitution.

We side with the greens on ending the federal war on drugs and we're both for protecting the environment, though on the environment, we agree on the same general idea but differ in execution.

I suppose a libertarian environmental policy would be to allow some of the national parks to be privatized so the audubon society or the nature conservancy could care for it.

This [may] sound kooky and fringe but I actually spent the night at a Florida rest area on the way to Daytona Beach...a PRIVATELY owned rest area. The facilities were clean, had 24/7 security, had a picnic area for families. It was one of the few times I felt safe sleeping in a car rather than a motel.

Libertarian TV:

Perhaps you are right about education not being a "silver bullet". Poverty is a complex issue and there is no one thing that can fix it. However, I still think that education is the greatest factor. Libertarians are for free markets and free people. But in the slums and ghettos of America, children don't even understand what a free market is. And without proper education, they will not have the skills compete in that free market. Then when they realize that they can't compete, their only option is to do what the others before them did and put their hands out at the welfare office.

I think that one of the big reasons education is not helping break the poverty cycle as much as it should is because the schools in the poverty stricken areas of our country are a joke compared to those in richer areas. Sure there are rags to riches stories out there but we can't possibly think that the majority of kids who go to these run-down, violent schools can compete with kids who get a proper well funded education.

Matt makes a good point above about public schools not having to compete. My mother works in a public school here in Minneapolis and the inefficiencies and the waste that she tells me about are ridiculous. If we could some how artificially create the pressures that a free market brings on businesses to be efficient and apply that pressure to public schools, we would see schools be ran much better. Perhaps if the schools competed with each other or have the administration's pay be based on how efficient their schools are run and the success rate of their students. Ideas anyone?

Mike R:

I agree that the government has no right in telling us what we can and can't do to our own bodies, including the issues you mention: obesity, drug control, etc. The only exception I make to this is with the issue of abortion. I think that the only point we differ on is the whether or not a fetus is just a parasite feeding off of the mother, or if the fetus is a living human being that should have the same rights and liberties as the rest of us. I feel that the later is true. Therefore when a woman makes the choice to have an abortion, she is using force on another human, and to me this is wrong.

I have a problem with giving a child rights only after he / she is born. Basically what you are saying is that my mother had a right to kill me the day before I was born, but the minute I came out, she no longer had that right. This does not make sense to me.

I'm sorry Adam, but I can only agree with you to a small extent. One could say that there are two forms of education...formalized and life. Formalized education (such as public schools) is not going to make a damn bit of difference. Life education makes a great deal of difference. Traditional schooling (including public schools0 actually thwarts learning in most cases, because it forces a child to focus on what the teacher wants him to study, rather than on what the child needs to study. But when children...any children...are free to learn what life can teach them without having their every minute regimented, then real learning for the real world can happen.

You have fallen into the trap of believing that "we" have to provide education or else the poor's children won't learn. This is a fallacy that has existed for generations, and it is why the poor are still poor. Let me be very clear about this. Formal traditional education is the biggest DETRIMENT to ending poverty, not the greatest key.

The only times that poverty has ever ended for any people anywhere in the world (especially in this country) has been when poor people have been unencumbered by the state, to allow them to compete, prosper, and keep the fruits of their labors, while having their individual rights protected. There have been no exceptions to this rule.

You assert that education is the greatest factor because free markets haven't been taught to them in a school. I say that's rubbish. You don't have to be taught about a free market to soak it up into your skin. All you have to be is free, and the free market will become a part of your life.

The problem is that the poor are not free! They don't live in a free market. In fact, the society they live in is only marginally free. They live in a highly regulated and taxed market. That is NOT a free market. That's why they don't understand what a free market is.

Free markets are not mere abstractions when they're truly free. They have only been reduced to abstractions because we don't live in them.

I'm sorry but can you go into greater detail about the things that the Libertarian Party have in common with the Green Party and/or Constitution Party?

Libertarian TV:

You raise some very valid points. I completely agree with you about the difference between formal education and life education. This is sometimes called book smarts and street smarts. To be successful in life, I think that one needs to possess both.

I went through 13 years of public education, followed by four and a half years at public university. The public schools I went to were far from glamorous, however I was very successful at them. I attribute most of this success to my parent's guidance. This is the "life" side of education you are referring too.

You say education is not the silver bullet for solving the poverty problem. I don't think freedom is the silver bullet either. But fire both bullets and perhaps we'd be getting somewhere.

Well the Supreme Court just ruled in the KELO case. The takings clause now permits a city to steal your home and give it to antoher private individual for any reason. If you thought the republic was dead before, it's even more dead now.

It's ashame that Rhenquist is going to leave the Court. I used to despise him but he and Thomas have a little Constitution still left in them. Stevens has decided to end his term on the bench by siding with the "Government can do no wrong" philosophy. I once thought he was the best justice.

Here's one link to the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

It's obvious that the Democrats' hatred of individual private property rights and love of wealthy corporations (you read that right) has prevailed here. The four abstentions, aside from O'Connor, were all Republicans and self-professed "conservatives".

So we don't need to restate the obvious about the Jackass Party. However, it will be rather interesting to see how (if at all) the GOP responds to this decision. Whether or not they address this issue head-on or dismiss it in favor of typically stupid non-issue b.s. that doesn't even matter will directly influence whether or not I leave them once and forever and rejoin the LP. It's crap like this that makes me hate myself for ever having left the LP to begin with.

What is the LP's stance on animal rights? I'm asking because the government is infringing on my right to have a pet puma.

Jonathan Lentz:

I'm quite disturbed by your fear of religion taking over the schools. It will not happen.

Yes, there will be religious schools and I'm glad of it. Let the Private Enterprises flourish.

I am even further disturbed by your call for an artifical balance between religious and non religious schools. That is called socialism.

Privatize all education.

-Brandon D

toddrymofo, I would vote for you too, but not because I agree with all of your positions, and not because you're the best compromise toward my positions. I would vote for you because I think you're a logical man and I think you can be persuaded to my views based on their logic.

Here are my positions:

Every person has full authority over their own body and mind. Drugs should be fully legal and any other moral discretions should be fully legal and up to the discretion of each individual.

Because you have a right to your own mind, you have a right to its products. Any money you make and any goods you produce are yours and should not be taxed by any government for any reason. (This does not rule out taxes. It only taxes rules out taxes that are based on or in proportion to what a person produces, especially income and property taxes of any kind, including luxury taxes.)

The government cannot do anything that private citizens cannot do, or stated equivalently, private citizens can do everything the government can do. Government is made of government employees, who are people just like the rest of us, with the same abilities. Because governments do not need to compete, they also do it less efficiently than private, for profit institutions. Roads should be privatized, schools should be privatized, health care should be privatized. Anything the government does currently should be sold to the highest bidder, and the government beaureas should be disbanded. I agree with the position of the party that military and law enforcement are the proper functions of government (I also think that issuing patents is a proper government function, because it protects your rights to the products of your mind as mentioned above), but my application of this idea is different. I will touch on that later.

There is a fundamental flaw with the current democratic system, that being that every citizen gets one vote, regardless of the amount of money they pay into it. This allows people who pay no taxes or few taxes to have the same voice as those who front more of the bill. The solution is what I call a corporate government. Every citizen has a number of votes equal to the number of dollars they paid in taxes since the last election. Because people (at least honest people who don't crave power over others) want to pay the least taxes possible, this will eventually lead to the most fair tax system possible, which is my next point.

The only fair tax is a lump sum tax, where all citizens pay the same amount. All citizens receive the same benefits from taxes, namely military protection and law enforcement, so it stands to reason that they should pay the same amount for it. We've all heard the phrase, "equal pay for equal work." Shouldn't this apply to paying for government service?

Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, as stated in our Declaration of Independence. This applies on an individual basis. Individual citizens have the right to decide if they consent to be ruled by any particular government. Citizens have the right to seceed from any government they do not want to be a part of, and take all of their property with them.

Because citizens all pay the same amount for government services (which should be law enforcement, military protection, and patents), and because each citizen has a right to choose his own government, what would happen under this system is that many governments would rise, and individual citizens would choose the one they wanted to be part of. That's competition among governments for citizens who all pay the same amount. Instead of a government as we think of it, a government would in essence be a private security company that provides law enforcement and military protection. There you have it, a fully functioning anarchy, where all people are free to choose everything for themselves and rights are defended by the people's choice. It's the perfect world.

I have a quick question. I keep hearing that LPs are closer to the Republicans than Democrats, then I read LP comments that makes it seem otherwise. I should think, though the LP is directly between the two, that it would agree more with Dems, since Dems claim to be concerned with individual rights like the LP, and Reps, while concerned about economic freedom, are only concerned about it because they are corrupt businessmen. That's not to say Dems aren't corrupt, but they seem to actually care about personal liberties. Your thoughts.

You're right, Dave, the republic and the constitution are dead. This decision made me so physically sick that I had to leave work early today. I got light-headed and almost fainted. The only way to defend the constitution is to follow it. It does have flaws, but it is not the responsibility of the judiciary to correct these. One of the major flaws of the Constitution is in that fifth amendment, where it states property shall not be seized without just compensation. It should say property should not be seized. I like Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia. In fact, I heard Scalia speak about constitutional literalism and was very impressed.

I'm reading here about alot of compromises that yall are offering. These include a scaled down progressive tax and scaled down welfare. My question is, if you allow any welfare or any welfare, how do you decide what is reasonable? I have stated above why progressive taxes are wrong. Are more moderate progressive taxes less wrong? No, because they are derived from the same faulty premise, the premise that need of service and ability to pay and considerations.

As I stated above, a person has full right to any products of his mind and effort. These cannot be seized against the person's will for any reason whatsoever, including dire need. Income taxes started small and now they're spiraling out of control. We've seen modest welfare in the past grow into the welfare state we live in today. Once you allow even the smallest theft, any amount of theft becomes justifiable, because a false statement implies whatever you want. I never support the lesser of two evils, because I never support any evi. The only solution is totally free society. There is an essay I have been meaning to read entitled "Anatomy of a Compromise," by Ayn Rand. I think it would show me how to express this point better. Have any of yall read it and if so do you have any thoughts?

The previous post was mine, FYI

Confused,

If you want to understand where the LP fits in the political spectrum, don't just think in terms of left-right. It's too limiting to handle the question. Take a look at the Nolan chart, used as the basis for the "World's Smallest Political Quiz." You can take the quiz yourself at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Adam,

I think you've left out the most important aspect of life education, or "street smarts" as you call them. They're not primarily what our parents teach us. Life education lessons are the lessons we learn as we interact with the real world. To the degree we are free to "pursue our own happiness," we can learn unlimited amounts. To the degree that we are deterred from that end by the state, we are deterred from acquiring the education we need to survive economically and otherwise.

Before you reject the idea that freedom is the "silver bullet" for poverty, take a close look at those areas of this country that have the most grinding, mind-bending poverty. Then look at the level of regulation and taxation in those areas. You'll find that it is also grinding and mind-bending.

I stand by what I said. Freedom makes all the difference. Nothing else is needed.

Lib TV,

I have already taken the quiz and am aware of the Nolan diagram, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a left and right and the LP is in the middle, agreeing with the Dems and Reps on half the issues and disagreeing on the other half. Just because you can add a top and bottom doesn't change that fact. Just so it's out there: when I took the quiz I got "Libertarian."

I don't understand the left-right dichotomy. It seems to me that both the left and right positions totally contradict themselves and therefore make no sense. The left thinks freedom is good when money isn't involved, but not when money IS involved. The right thinks the opposite.

I think the right has more in common with the left than libertarians have with either side. They both favor controlling individuals, while libertarians favor individual freedom. That they've convinced everyone that they have different positions is the greatest trick they've played on the world. They've fixed the coin. Heads control, tails control. The only way out is to stop using their coin.

Man, that was deep.

Don't thank me for the coin thing, I got it from The Fountainhead.

Where do Libertarians stand on the electoral college? I say abolish.

I say get rid of it too. Elections shouldn't be a game show wherein a candidate has to score points, but based on the majority.

Oh yeah p.s. trash the electoral college!

Bush is a blight on mankind. I guess that's why you're a green and not a libertarian.

Whatever dude. I'm not wasting my time with a response to that.

You just did.

you know what I mean

Tommy:

The Constitution Party's platform can be found at http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php . I recently read through the document and found these noticeable differences from the LP's stance:

1. Opposition to state-recognized homosexual unions and legalized adoption of children by homosexual couples.
2. Support for the War on Drugs, although they do condemn the trampling of constitutional rights involved in the current process.
3. Opposition to legalized abortions of any form.
4. Support for treating HIV/AIDS as a public health issue.
5. Support for limited immigration, or opposition to "open borders."
6. Opposition to legalized pornography.

Those were the only major differences that I could find in the quick glance-over I gave the CP's platform. Unfortunately, the Green Party's platform, found at http://gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf , is much too long for me to read tonight. If we thought our platform was too lengthy, at least it isn't this bad. Anyway, I hope I helped you out, Tommy.

A few comments:

1. JGdisciple, I like a lot of what you're saying about the perfect world, and I agree with you that voting for the "lesser of the two evils" is a bad way to increase liberty. Unfortunately, your proposed United States is the sort of thing that scares little-l libertarians away from our party. People see that we, in the end, advocate complete anarchy, and therefore do not vote for us (I'm talking here about those rare voters who actually take the time to find out what we stand for). I personally am not convinced that complete anarchy is the way to go, but I support the Libertarian Party anyhow because it is the only way to get to my personal destination on the Trail of Freedom. I just want to get off the Wagon Train a little sooner than some members such as yourself (heh).

2. Seriously, do we have to degrade to a flame war with the Green Party member in our midst? I welcome greenie and any comments he has about our policies. greenie agreed with us that the War on Drugs needs ending. Let's quit bashing him and, as he said, find common ground.

3. Where, if such a thing exists, can I find a libertarian forum where ALL issues can be discussed in a more orderly fashion than these comment threads?

Thank you.

Isn't the Constitution Party primarily a Christian political party? If so, the LP believes in the freedom of religion, and that a religion shouldn't impose rules in the government in their favor.

Yeah nix on the flame war. Anyways where do you guys stand on the Afghanistan occupation? My position is anti-nation-building there, since their economy is built on opium and we are imposing the War on Drugs on them by sticking around. What say you?

Oh yeah and how do you justify the right to secede, as listed in your party platform? I don't want another civil war; do you?

The Declaration of Independence, that's how. The founding fathers stated that it's the people's right to overthrow an oppressive government.

Has anyone formally proposed a forum to the webmaster? It would really be nice.

Confused, if you are aware of the Nolan chart and understand it, then you know that it is not any more meaningful to say that Libertarians are halfway between Reps and Dems than it is to say that Statists are halfway between Reps and Dems. If you choose to ignore the chart and limit yourself to the left-right spectrum, then you deserve to be confused.

greenie: secession is not a major part of the LP platform. While the right certainly exists (as Howie made clear), we aren't trying to secede. You're focusing on an issue that the LP pays virtually no attention to. Indeed, I don't know anyone in America who is focusing on that issue. Looks to me like you're just trying to pick a fight.

Tito: I liked most of your comments. However, I think you were a little hard on JGdisciple, particularly with your comment, "Unfortunately, your proposed United States is the sort of thing that scares little-l libertarians away from our party....People see that we, in the end, advocate complete anarchy...." I don't see any justification for that. It strikes me that you also might have been scrapping for a fight, since you did not show how what JGdisciple said warranted that reply.

Greenie, I justify the right of secession by saying that a person has a right to live his own life how he wants to live it and he has a right to his property. You have a right to determine who you are governed by and if you are governed if all. As far as a civil war goes, I would rather not have to spill blood to solve the moral crisis. However, if I found this country became impossible to live in, I would not hesitate to declare my independence. If they tried to imprison me or make me repatriate, I would fight and probably die, but I'm fine with that. I would much rather die free than live a slave.

Tito, the problem with "little-l" libertarians as you call them is that they think in half measures and don't follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions. I think alot of people joined this party because they think the government has gone too far with infringing in the people's rights, and they would like to scale back such invasions to an acceptable level where they wouldn't notice it as much. This is not the way to go about thinking. The best way to think is logical deduction. Start with premises you think are self evident and see what they lead to logically. Of course, you must be very careful in selecting your premises, because a false statement can imply anything.

You say you want to get off the wagon earlier than me. I think that means you want to get to a point where you can live comfortably and settle for that amount of progress, because anything beyond that would be too painful to achieve, or impossible. I believe that if you get off anywhere short of the absolute goal (anarchy), then government will grow back to what it is and you will need to fight the same fight all over again. You need either to change your system of government or to abolish it (like I said above, government isn't necessarily bad, but democratic government is a bad system).

The reason my dream will take a long time to be realized (perhaps several millenia) is that most people don't understand philosophy. Many don't understand the deductivist thinking I discussed earlier, that's why you have religious movements and the like that try to regulate individual morality. You can't assume anything on faith as I showed above, so deductivism rules out faith based religions. Once you believe in deductivism, it is a moral choice to follow it or not. Many people choose not to think logically because it is easier to accept things on faith and to spout jargon. I think the answer to this dilemma is education in logic and ethics. I would be more than happy to donate my money to private schools that teach good logic and good ethics. I would also be willing to financially support the war in Iraq because I believe in freeing people from oppression. I can't support the war though because others might not and their money is being put toward it.

Sorry if I seemed like I was trying to pick a fight with JGdisciple. I was just making an observation that his advocacy of nothing short of the goal of anarchy makes party membership and support more difficult. I understand the argument that nothing short of perfection is acceptable, although I myself see the government outlined in the Constitution as an acceptable measure. I agree that if we ever get the federal government back to that level, it will want to grow again. All I can say is that maybe we need to be more vigilant in keeping it behind the fence, instead of allowing it to grow as we have for 200+ years. In the meantime, we are getting nowhere in halting the growth of government. Our efforts to exclude those who promote half measures from our party have resulted in a lack of growth, and thus, many Republicans and Democrats who support the growth of the government have been elected. Education of the masses would be the obvious solution to our problem, but this endevour entails a tricky problem itself: You have to get a majority of the population to completely accept the view that force is evil in order to transform the U.S. (which wouldn't exist then) into an anarchy. Maybe this would be possible given the millenia you mentioned.

To finish up my last post, it seems to me that the opportunity for more liberty now that a larger and more inclusive party would bring might be preferrable to an extremely uncertain conversion of the populace in the far future. With a larger base, we can more easily get politicians elected to major positions within the government. Unfortunately, one way to widen the base is to make the platform more moderate. This is a compromise, though, and that's probably why some within the party would oppose it. At the bare minimum, the platform could offer more "practical" reasons for our stances. "Force is evil" does not convince everyone, and we should realize that when we try to market our ideas.

The major reason I was a Republican was because of the right to life stance. In truth, it is a bait as switch with Republicans. They say they stand for right to life but what they really mean as long as it doesn't oppose hospitals making money. Bush while in office in Texas passed legislation that allowed hospitals to suggest euthanasia to individuals such as those who doctors have labeled as brain dead. Republicans will focus the right to life on the abortion issue but fail to recognize it across the board.

This however has lead me here to Libertarianism. I have strong Christian beliefs and values I hold dear, however, it is my belief that my values or beliefs of others such as myself should not be legislated upon others. What I do in my own home is my business.

If I wish to seek alternative healthcare outside the legislated medical body to relieve my pain, it is my right to do so.

I want government out of e