Equal Time ; What Does it Mean to be Libertarian?

[Milton Bradley]

What do you believe are the guiding values of the Libertarian party?


If you identify yourself this way, tell us why you came to support those little known radical they call Libertarians?


If you're on the outside, why are you on the outside?

[The Architect]

What do you believe are the guiding values of the Libertarian party?

What are the values of the Libertarian party?

[underbear1]

Libertarian means you can constantly complain about Democrats and Republicans, and know your party will NEVER hold a majority in Congress,(either House) and NEVER hold the White House, and NEVER have a judge on the Supreme Court.

[tivodan1116]

Gee, underbear, do you think you could have added less to the debate? Next time, save yourself a few keystrokes and just say "Libertarians are doody heads nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah"

At any rate, the simplest way to explain L(l)ibertarian philosophy is in a few simple cliches:
- Live and let live.
- The right to swing my fists ends where the other man's nose begins.
You get the idea.
The core value is that so long as a person is not directly harming another person, they should be able to do whatever they like.

[underbear1]

What I posted is the absolute truth, can you honestly say you think there will be a Libertarian controlled House of Congress? President? Supreme Court Justice? Please keep your consideration limited to just the next 200 years.

[Jason]

Okay, let's stay on track here. underbear1, please try and answer the proposed question "What does it mean to be Libertarian?" and not go on tangents. Obviously this is causing a disturbance.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Milton Bradley]

Be it known I did flag this thread for Moderator intervention.


Us Libertarians do fling a substantial amount of mud at the opponents, so I'm willing to let those on the outside have their say about us. Equal time, and all.


I know they're wrong, and that good enough for me.

[lsbskins1]

Do you want a laundry list of virtues only? Very few political movements or philosophies are formed with the intention of being "bad". You might go so far as to say no parties or philosophies are formed to be bad. If you accept only the positive interpretations of the believers, you don't get a complete picture.

That being said, on the positive side, I believe Libertarians want to increase freedom, they want to induce responsibility and they think they have a good formula. And when I say Libertarians, I mean a fairly small percentage of people who lay claim to the term. I think the party attracks a dangerously high percentage of people who are WAY more concerned with the freedom than they are with the responsibility.

[The Bacon Guy]

Although we don't have a Libertarian party in the U.K., I would describe myself as a libertarian. I don't know much about the US party, but here are my basic political beliefs.

I think libertarianism is primarily about freedom. My basic belief is that the government should stay out of public business as far as is possible. Legislation should only be to protect people from demonstrable physical or financial harm. (this does not include protecting them from themselves). That is as far as I think the government should go in regulating society.

As far as the economy is concerned, I think freedom is the key word once again. The government should provide the most basic public services and give benefits only to people who actually have a reason not to work. Anything else should be paid for out of one’s own pocket. A totally free capitalist market is also essential. I think to be a true libertarian, rather than just a social libertarian, one must be economically right wing.

Anyway, that's my basic philosophy. How does that tie in with the Libertarian Party policy?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Be it known that I did not flag this thread for Moderator intervention. Us Libertarians do fling a substantial amount of mud at the opponents, so I'm willing to let those on the outside have their say about us. Equal time, and all. I know they're wrong, and that good enough for me.

Edited to correct

[kubedawg]

I view myself a libertarian more than the other 2 major parites because both democratic and republican parties have their pros and cons. Neither party is perfect, and I mainly believe our rights as individuals come before anything else.

Anyway, this doesn't mean I'll vote for a democrat as opposed to a republican in the next presidential election or vice-versa. I vote for whomever I feel will lead this country in the right direction to ensuring our freedoms as citizens in this beloved country and continuing our rights the way they've always been.

I'm also not saying the libertarian party is perfect either, but it's certainly a better choice than democrat or republican.

When I debate here, I generally try to start in the middle ground of it all. I hardly am ever left or right wing because like I said, they both have their flaws. Take a look at my signature, and you will see where I stand.

The government has no right whatsoever to regulate our lives and that they should do whatever is necessary to maintail our civil rights over anything else.

Right now, I think our government is a joke, and we need to do a 180 because all of our rights are pretty much meaningless as of now. It sickens me how stupid people can be when they get a little bit of power.

Sometimes to take 2 steps forward, we must take 1 step backward which is what our government needs to see. Things cannot just be done with the snap of a finger. There are too man people with their head in the clouds about a perfect world where their extreme views about something that most others could care less about because it's not a big issue or because what they think is right, is completely wrong, but they don't know it, because they are too busy hating each other over stupid shit.

Religion, profanity, animal rights, drugs, college, recycling, abstinence, manners, gun control, prostitution, cigarettes, these are things that may or may not be bullshit depending on who you talk to. Some people(including the government) are too focused on trying to force their views on others who don't want to be forced something because it just makes no sense in a lot of cases. The middle ground in my opinion is where the core of all problems lie. All this debating about all those topics in the first sentence of this paragraph can be easily solved by staying in the middle. Not necessarily being neutral about issues, but more or less explaining both sides to each topic, why one side might be more feasible than the other, or why the subject in it of itself is just plain stupid.

The government cannot have power over some of those things I mentioned in the first sentence of the previous paragraph, because it would violate our rights via the constitution of the United States. If someone hears the word 'fuck' on the radio, and are sensitive to that kind of language, they should reach out their hand and change the station. The government has no right forcing a radio station to not use certain language in their broadcast, and the same goes with television. Religion cannot be forced because everyone has the right to believe in whatever diety or no diety at all.

Left and right, I see the government removing more and more of our freedoms and I'm tired of it. That's why I chose this party, because it stands for our rights and freedoms and that's that.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Somebody once said "A Libertarian is a Republican who wants to smoke pot."

[Osborn F Enready]

Excuse me folks, this is an issue near and dear to my heart, and at a time when I feel the party needs to be talked about.

What does it mean to be a Libertarian?

Well, what does it mean to be a "member" of any party? Parties of politics are inherantly bad, and work against the nature of a government such as ours.
George Washington summed it up best I think, when he said these prophetic words in his farewell address in 1796....

(Speaking on the spirit of party, state and federal.)

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. George Washingtons Farwell Adress, 1796

In that spirit, we come to what is available in modern politics, and that is only party. As Washington saw so clearly, the spirit of party has consumed American politics, at the hands of corporate lobbyists, and the military/industrial complex. The two major parties have ruled this nation for 156 years, straight, and their perceived, absolute securing of power is evident in blatant form from as far back as 1933. People have to remember that the Republicans and Democrats SHAPED media, media laws and the expansion of information technology. They have had all the tools to craft a "bi-partisan lock" on politics through information manipulation to "war and emergency powers" in the name of public safety, changing our entire economic existence as well as our basic, constitutionally protected rights to property, life and privacy.

Now, many people will tell you that Libertarians want to turn back time to a world that no longer exists, and that is simply not true. Libertarians want the law to apply to all equally, want the rights of American citizens to be secure, not just from foreign invasion, riot or rebellion, but also against our and every nations biggest threat, internal corruption. Libertarians want to resurrect the Constitution, as well as the idea of limited government, individual liberty, and the concept of taxation ONLY with representation, something over half of America has long done without.(the non-voting portion who refuse to suppot the lesser-of-two-evils)

Under these pretexts, the Libertarian party comes about, even though the very concept of party is disdainful to their founding ideals(There is an old saying that "trying to organize Libertarians is like trying to herd cats, it just goes against their nature." and it rings true to the core). They are left no option but to garner strength through organization to even hope for a chance of defeating parties that have become economic powerhouses, generating millions of dollars for campaign funding that generate more income than some small nations via corporate donations and "party polarization", while passing local laws that make it harder for any other party to gain ballot access, let alone media coverage or EQUAL debate time. Even now, the party of principle REFUSES to accept corporate monies, and lobbyist handouts!

It is now when people are finally starting to see the values of a party of principle, because principle has long ago been discarded by the two major parties due to their lack of fear of reprisal by the people who make up this nation, politically or otherwise. They are smug in their perceived political security, much like the American public was before 9-11 about its national security and intelligence.

Now more than ever, we are ready for a party of principle, that provides serious debate, straight-forward ideas, and the basic fundamental of rule of law through a respectful, at times tenuous relationship with liberty. If it were not for the liberty of the individual, and our Constitutionally enumerated rights, we would be no different than any other slave nation, any other endentured servants to King or God, Prince or Icon of another name.

Both major parties have sanctioned our undoing by incrementalism in the name of compromise, by joining as one while remaining a facade of two to the very people they represent. All the while they maintained to represent the very Constitution which they gutted with new interpretations and old lies.

It is now time to pull down the facade, expose them for what they are, and move on our way to achieving something we should have long ago had......
Liberty, and justice for all, in a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic.

Let freedom ring, vote Libertarian, vote Liberty, keep bound our one and only common thread at the core. Mutual respect for your fellow citizens.

To me, that is what being a Libertarian currently is all about. No lifetime partisan contract, no professional lifetime politicians, simply a vote for our ideals and principles with the best guarantee for the people out of all choices.

Choices.... something we are running out of at the behest of the two-major parties.

“Business Week says that each year in the US there are more than 100,000 new laws, rules and regulations enacted.”
-Richard J. Maybury, Whatever Happened to Justice?

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
-James Madison, Federalist Paper #62

“...[W]hat shall be the supreme law of the land... only laws that are made in pursuance of the constitution have that rank. . .All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void of law.”
-Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 at Sec. 180, (1803)

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison

[kubedawg]

Excellent view. I enjoyed reading your post. Now, do you think in the next presidential election, we can create a tri-partisan election with a Libertarian candidate and become a powerhouse just like the other 2? I seriously think people will go that route. People want change because they obviously aren't getting it with our current president, and I really think it took 9/11 to show how truly f'ed up our government really is. We need an innovater who can lead us to an independency from oil, and to go different routes for energy such as ethanol or HH0. We need someone smart, not gun crazy. Someone with principles and good judgement and common fucking sense.

[samsara15]

Since I came up a Left Libertarian in their test, and I'm not an anarchist, I wonder what it means to be a libertarian. I think their test is biased to make people appear to lean more libertarian then they actually do.

Some versions of their test have me as a moderate social liberal, which is alsonews to me, since moderation and myself have little in common.

No political party is perfect. There will be discoonects anytime you get more than one person involved

[Osborn F Enready]

Kubedawg said: I enjoyed reading your post. Now, do you think in the next presidential election, we can create a tri-partisan election with a Libertarian candidate and become a powerhouse just like the other 2?

I say:
I think its possible, sure, but only if elections are again reigned in by the people. It wouldn't be beneficial to have multiple parties that operate as the major parties do today as far as election campaign funding.

What I think would effect lasting change and resolve most election problems?

1.) Require, via the FCC, all broadcasters on radio and tv in this nation, to give equal time to all canidates that make ballott access for their local, and all national elections. They are the publics airwaves, and to profit from them should not be free and without responsibility to the public to maintain non-biased election coverage to keep the public informed.

2.) Require a secure voting method with verifiable paper-trails, coupled with Instant Runooff Voting, that allows people to vote for ALL canidates in the election on the ballot as well as write-ins, in the order they would prefer to see them win, which would remove the "lesser-of-two-evils" theory of voting from existence.

3.)Limit campaign funding to ONLY drawing from a national election fund, equally, among all parties that make ballott access, as well as putting a cap on private donation amounts. Eliminate corporate, or business donations ENTIRELY. Corporations and businesses are not entities themselves, that deserve a right to influence elections, since their owners and employees all have a right to vote, and to donate personally to whom they see fit.

4.)Make a new federal law that requires all "political debate" sponsors, to include all canidates in the debates for the election they are sponsoring the debate for, unless the canidates volunteer of their own will not to show up, after being notified with equal time for response.


Those four things alone, would remove almost all electoral processes that have served to disempower the voters, and will again empower the voters by meeting the needs for informational clarity about canidates for all upcoming elections.

I also think this would provide the best system of informational awareness with respect to a free press, as well as opening the elections up to ALL parties, not just major parties that have endless amount of funding.

Kubedawg said: We need an innovater who can lead us to an independency from oil, and to go different routes for energy such as ethanol or HH0. We need someone smart, not gun crazy. Someone with principles and good judgement and common fucking sense.

I say:
I agree in entirety except for the comment on guns, or being "gun crazy".

I don't know exactly what you meant by "gun crazy", but I would like to say a couple things regarding guns in general, and how they apply to the Libertarian party in general.

There is in our modern times, dispute over the meaning of the second amendment, and how it pertains to individual rights to own firearms. This dispute evolved only by mis-interpretation of the law, in precedent building cases that have been recorded and used as props to defend further encroachment upon the right to common defense, and personal defense.

The second amendment was written clearly, and its meaning was documented by many of the founders prior to adoption, as well as further defined in personal writings after adoption.

Allow me to share a couple quotes regarding our individual right to own arms, regardless of our forming a National Military, having a Military Reserves, and the modern application of the word militia regarding the context of the amendment itself.

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey.”
-Thomas Paine (1737-1809), in "Thoughts on Defensive War", in The Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country...”
-James Madison

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
-George Mason

“To disarm the people--that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.”
-George Mason, founding father who led opposition to adoption of the US Constitution before the addition of the Bill of Rights

“A free people ought [...] to be armed [...]”
-George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790, printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

“There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.”
-George Washington

“If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.”
-Frederic Bastiat, The Law, Paris, 1850

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
-George Washington, presidential farewell address

And a short chronology of individual ownership of firearms in history, thanks to author Eugene Volokh. For the documents listed in this timeline, go to:

SEO Reviewer and click on ``Sources on the Second Amendment.''....

1765: Sir William Blackstone, a powerful influence on the Framers' thinking, publishes his famous ``Commentaries on the Laws of England.'' He describes the British right to bear arms, a predecessor to the Second Amendment, as one of ``the rights of the subject'' -- in other words, an individual right.

1776: Pennsylvania enacts the first state bill of rights, which protects the right to bear arms gun-ownership right from being abridged by the state. This provision and similar ones in other early state constitutions are evidence that the right to own guns was aimed at constraining state governments rather than empowering them to form militias.

1788: New York, North Carolina and Virginia demand that Congress secure the right to bear arms, and they define ``militia'' as the citizenry at large. Rhode Island makes a similar demand in 1790.

1791: The U.S. Bill of Rights is enacted, including the Second Amendment: ``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 phrase ``the right of the people'' is also used in the First and Fourth amendments, which secure individual rights to petition the government and to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

1792: Passage of the federal Militia Act, which defines ``militia'' as all able-bodied white male citizens ages 18 to 45 -- not as a small National Guard-like group. Constitutional amendments passed after the Civil War eliminate the racial restriction.

1803: St. George Tucker, the first prominent American legal commentator, publishes his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, applying them to U.S. constitutional law. He says the Second Amendment prevents the government from disarming the citizenry.

1833: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the leading American constitutional commentator of the early 1800s, in his ``Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,'' describes the Second Amendment right to bear arms as belonging to ``the citizens,'' and echoes Tucker's view.

1866: Congress enacts the Freedmen's Bureau Act. Part of it aims to protect the ``constitutional right to bear arms'' for black people, alongside their rights to ``personal liberty'' and to owning property.

1880: Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, the leading American constitutional scholar of the 19th century, stresses in his ``General Principles of Constitutional Law'' that the right to own guns belongs to all the people, not just a small subgroup.

1934: The National Firearms Act -- the first major federal gun-control law -- is enacted. It is mostly aimed at weapons associated with organized crime, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

1939: The U.S. Supreme Court, in United States vs. Miller, says the Second Amendment protects only those arms that have ``some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' But the court also stresses that ``militia'' means ``all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.'' The court does not say that the right belongs to the states or the National Guard. It is the court's only modern Second Amendment decision. (From 1820 to 1998, the court has referred to the Second Amendment 28 times, usually tangentially. Twenty-two of the 28 opinions quote only the right-to-bear-arms clause, without mentioning the militia language.)

The only, and surest protection of individual liberty against all odds, is the possession of, training with, and exercise of the right bear arms by the individual.

To me, this in no way defines any aspect of being "gun crazy", and if anything, would be more aptly labeled "gun sane".

[Osborn F Enready]

samsara15 said: Since I came up a Left Libertarian in their test, and I'm not an anarchist, I wonder what it means to be a libertarian. I think their test is biased to make people appear to lean more libertarian then they actually do.

I say:
I contend that their test is not the least biased of those I have seen. Why is that? Because, there are two essential things that make up any party that is to be effective in government.... economic issues and social issues.

If you are pro-rights, you are usually liberal on social issues.
If you are pro-rights, you are usually conservative on economic issues.

As you can see from your test results in you signature, you fall to the left on both sides of economic and social issues, which means you probably don't identify with the economic side of the Libertarian perspective, which is rooted in small government, conservatism, balanced budget and a minimum of taxation in the name of promoting the general welfare via social aid programs.

The test in your signature, is the best political test I have seen.

Samsara 15 said: Some versions of their test have me as a moderate social liberal, which is alsonews to me, since moderation and myself have little in common. No political party is perfect. There will be discoonects anytime you get more than one person involved.

I say:
There are only disconnects if the party compromises on principals and founding common threads.

Party is like an umbrella. The more people you try to fit under it, the more people are left to try to stretch the umbrella to conform to all intrests of those that make it up, the more the seams rip and the more people are left in the rain until all are getting wet.

Party is only of value in politics if it is true to its ideals, and platform planks.

The Libertarian party is a shining example of a non-compromising position in the area of individual rights, and equality of all in the eyes of the law.

Being that those are our basis of creation as a nation, I think those are good ideals to form a position of no-compromise.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Somebody once said "A Libertarian is a Republican who wants to smoke pot."

Consider how much common ground we have, and then add fiscal resposibility, and you have ( what I consider ) the better ideals of both of the recognized parties.

Quote by: samsara15 Since I came up a Left Libertarian in their test, and I'm not an anarchist, I wonder what it means to be a libertarian. I think their test is biased to make people appear to lean more libertarian then they actually do.

They use libertarian with a small "L" to represent the concept that is opposite to authoritarian.

Quote by: samsara15 Some versions of their test have me as a moderate social liberal, which is alsonews to me, since moderation and myself have little in common.

Again, I think you are misunderstanding that the word libertarian, and thus left of center, represents the opposite to authoritarian, or in this case regulation.

Quote by: samsara15 No political party is perfect. There will be discoonects anytime you get more than one person involved

I agree, but Libertarians ( with the capital "L" ) have a much stricter view of constutional interpretation then does your average Democrat, or Republican.

[brien]

Quote by: Milton Bradley What do you believe are the guiding values of the Libertarian party? If you identify yourself this way, tell us why you came to support those little known radical they call Libertarians? If you're on the outside, why are you on the outside?

Just to be clear:

The link:Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

From the link:

Frequently asked questions about the Libertarian Party What is a Libertarian? Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices. Are Libertarians liberal or conservative? Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles. In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle. How large is the Libertarian Party? By almost every objective measure, the Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in America. We’re active in all 50 states and have more than 200,000 registered voters, which is more than all other third parties combined. What kind of offices do Libertarians hold? Around the USA there are Libertarian mayors, county executives, county council members and even a Libertarian sheriff! Libertarians also serve on school boards and in hundreds of local offices. In 2004 our candidates for U.S. earned over 1 million votes for the third time in a row, which is a feat no other third party has achieved. These elected Libertarians are already hard at work saving you money and protecting your civil liberties. In fact, Libertarians saved Americans over $2.2 billion in 2004 alone. What kind of people join the Libertarian Party? People like you. People who used to be Republicans, Democrats, and independents – from all walks of life. They joined us because they realize that we’re the only political party working for their personal and economic liberty. Another question we sometimes hear: Is political extremist Lyndon LaRouche in the Libertarian Party? No. LaRouche has never been associated in any way with us. He runs for office as a Democrat. How can I join the party? It is free to join the Libertarian Party. But if you donate $25, you receive a subscription to our monthly newspaper LP News and help finance our work to spread the word about the Libertarian Party. With your help, we can keep the media informed; run Internet, radio, and magazine advertisements; send information to more Americans; support Libertarian candidates in winnable races; promote pro-freedom legislation at the federal and state level; provide resources to our state organizations; and more. Ask yourself: Is government too big or too small? Are taxes too high or too low? Does the government regulate my business too much or too little? Does the government control my personal life too much or not enough? If you agree, like most Americans, that government is too large, too expensive, and meddles too much, the Libertarian Party is for you! Now it’s time to take action. Join the Libertarian Party today – and become part of the new choice in American politics!

ANd also:

Introduction to the LP What is the Libertarian Party? | America's third largest party | Why not stick with the establishment? | The Libertarian option | What Americans want | Time for action What Is The Libertarian Party? The Libertarian Party is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual. America's Heritage Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren. Free and Independent Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way. Caring For People The Libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential. Principled; Consistent The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. Tolerant The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

Link to other links:MUCL Links

[brien]

Quote by: underbear1 Libertarian means you can constantly complain about Democrats and Republicans, and know your party will NEVER hold a majority in Congress,(either House) and NEVER hold the White House, and NEVER have a judge on the Supreme Court.

Your words remind me of the loyalist point of view in the 1740's when the British were impressing young Colonial sailors into the Bristish Navy. Therein lay the seeds of the American Revolution.

Your manner of thinking would still have us Royal Subjects.:rolleyes: