Would you support a REAL Libertarian Party?

[Matt W]

SteveA...please curb your habit of 'thread drift'. Otherwise expect the posts to be deleted.

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean with any questions.

[Osborn F Enready]

While your topics may have drifted off course a bit, I agree, AND feel they are essential to the topic of debate.

[bentodd]

Quote by: xyzer I don't like the idea of open immigration...Does that mean that libertarian candidates would open our borders completely if they are elected. Illegal immigration problems wopuld be quickly settled by making it legal to come in...

Open immigration is what I like to call a "Libertarian society issue". You can not just open up the borders with out other reforms before.

Example:
1. Borders can not be opened until government welfare handouts are abolished and taken over by fiscally responsible private charities or we would get mobed by immagrants who just want welfare.

2. The war on drugs would have to be abolished before borders could be opened. If not police would be after drug users and dealers who walk into this country freely. Leaving the rest of us open to violent criminals.

These are just a few examples. But the fact is Libertarians support free trade. When you have true free trade you will have to have open borders. I understand that this is a tuff issue, but remember that no Libertarian will just open borders with out thinking.

Also you would have to abolish state welfare before legalizing hard drugs.

Ben

[bentodd]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The LP is dead. They've never appealed to the normal voter and they don't have a chance.

I find it silly that you claim the LP is dead. You obviously have not had any involvment with the LP since nov 2004. The LP has emerged with a new outlook. The entire party is now totally focused running, training, and funding winable candidates.

The LP just opened the Libertarian leadership achool. It is an online university that will train about 2100 Libertarians before the 2006 elections.

We are providing training classes here in Vermont. We have also raised almost $10,000 in a candidate fund. We are running 10 candidates for the Vermont house. These candidates will have more funding then their opponents. They also include candidates that have done well in past elections where they did not have the funding. We even elected a Libertarian to the Vermont house in the late 90s. He served two terms. We have over 20 elected office holders in VT right now. We have increasing membership.

The LP is far from dead. We are the strongest we have been since 1980.

Sorry for going on and on but I don't like people to make claims when they have no basis for them.

Ben

[Osborn F Enready]

I support the LP, and I have for the last 7 or so years, as I see it as the only sane choice left for a Constitution respecting, Liberty loving individual who is proud to be an American.

I have been, and will continue to help recruit people to the Libertarian philosophy, if not the party itself, as I see it being the only way the United States will ever again become worthy of being a place I am proud to live in, or associate with, by these ideals becoming again a way of life for people who make up our nation.

Without personal and economic liberty, we are but slaves of another master, of another form.

[bishop]

keith/steve... we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. (sorry, i'm a little busy now and can't dedicate time to a full expose')

we're operating on an incompatible set of assumptions.. i see inventions such as computers and the internet (government creations) as items that private industry would not have created on its own - largely because the start-up costs were enormous and the technology was way too immature. you guys think that they would've done so themselves. i'll never say never - perhaps it could've been created privately, but i highly doubt it. (also remember that the backbone of the internet consists of government-run servers.)

there's no real way to quantify these assumptions, so i'm not going to try (or entertain attempts to do so).

one area where we will agree, however, is that government regulations (in certain cases) are a serious impediment to growth and innovation.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said:
keith/steve... we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. (sorry, i'm a little busy now and can't dedicate time to a full expose')

we're operating on an incompatible set of assumptions.. i see inventions such as computers and the internet (government creations) as items that private industry would not have created on its own - largely because the start-up costs were enormous and the technology was way too immature. you guys think that they would've done so themselves. i'll never say never - perhaps it could've been created privately, but i highly doubt it. (also remember that the backbone of the internet consists of government-run servers.)

there's no real way to quantify these assumptions, so i'm not going to try (or entertain attempts to do so).

one area where we will agree, however, is that government regulations (in certain cases) are a serious impediment to growth and innovation.

I say:
Bishop, I agree with your sentiment, though not that example particularly.

As far as the sentiment though, I think it is safe to say that nothing can be labeled in a blanket format and expected to hold true in all cases.

I think this is a lot of peoples problems with the Libertarian Party.

Libs are for smaller government, and the least amount POSSIBLE of regulation and scope of government. This does not mean they are ANTI-government, just pro-SMALL government, and limited amounts of regulation.

Some people here me say " we should get rid of all non-consitutionally approved government agencies and automaticly think I am some type of anarchist. I understand that in the modern world, living WITHOUT constitutional process being respected for so long, we must deal with each issue on an individual basis.
For instance*
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is obviously not a Constitutionally specified agency of government, but never the less, the danger and scope of the situation deems some type of regulation a necessity, therfore I think most Libs could understand that SOMETHING must meet this criteria within the limits of Constitutional authority, and provision.

These things could be handled individuallly, and reason would prevail in a Libertarian format as long as Constitutional limitations and provisions were respected and followed to the letter.

[bishop]

i have no qualms with that pov... i've long wanted to see states control everything from education, drug laws, immigration, healthcare, etc..

there is a question of transition, however, and i don't think much has really been spoken about this.

also, using your nuclear regulation example - i'd rather not fix a policy around an ideological position.. i'd prefer to see common sense prevail, even if it stretches explicit constitutional limitations. (i don't think the constitution is a perfect, or even near-perfect document - perhaps that is why i'm far from being a constitutional absolutist.)

[someguymp3]

Show me a Libertarian who knows about the 1832 great reform act and I'll entertain the concept of considering it.

[Osborn F Enready]

So Bishop, what do you fault in the Constitution? What doesn't it allow the government to do?

Did you know that Social Security could exist within the bounds of Constitutional Authority?
How about the welfare concept? Did you know that could exist within the bounds of Constitutional authority?

Libertarians are more about THE PROCESS of these things, than the overall concept.

It is the processes that have been ignored, and cast aside that Libs have problems with I think.

Welfare and Social Security could exist in a Libertarian system, just not at the hands of the government.

The problem is, most people here the popular arguments and ASSUME that since Libertarians are against "X", they must be against the entire concept, and against co-existence with those who adopt said concept. This is not true. It is more about the method, than the actual concepts I believe.

For instance, if Social Security were a privatized, voluntary program, I don't think any Libs would bitch.

Do you know what I am saying here?

[Osborn F Enready]

someguymp3 said:
Show me a Libertarian who knows about the 1832 great reform act and I'll entertain the concept of considering it.

I say:
I know a little of the Great Reform Act of 1832, what in particular and why is it relevant to your intrest?

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop we're operating on an incompatible set of assumptions.. i see inventions such as computers and the internet (government creations) as items that private industry would not have created on its own - largely because the start-up costs were enormous and the technology was way too immature.

Oh come on bishop. You know better than that. Yes the Arpanet grew into the internet, almost despite the government than because of it, but to suggest that computers were creations of government just isn't true. Yes, the space program lead to advancements in existing computer systems but the real advances have been made by the private sector. IBM does stand for International Business Machines, after all, and neither Gates nor Jobs are big government contractors.

To speak to your larger issue, the 19th Century saw many large capital projects all around the world undertaken almost exclusively by private investors with little or no government support. The capital markets then and now can provide significant speculative start-up capital and private ventures have always had an advantage in technology, innovation and engineering.

Government is more likely to get in the way of innovation than to foster it.

[RickSp]

Quote by: someguymp3 Show me a Libertarian who knows about the 1832 great reform act and I'll entertain the concept of considering it.

Not to be too provincial, but Ben was referring to the US LP. Earl Grey's noble efforts in early 19th century Great Britain notwithstanding, it is unclear how his largely failed reforms apply to the current LP. Earl Grey's Reform Act got rid of the rotten boroughs but still excluded the majority of the working classes by virtue of the 10 pound property qualification. The payment required to stand for election resulted in aristocrats, landowners or businessmen inevitably being the only candidates, so ultimately very little changed.

[someguymp3]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready someguymp3 said: Show me a Libertarian who knows about the 1832 great reform act and I'll entertain the concept of considering it. I say: I know a little of the Great Reform Act of 1832, what in particular and why is it relevant to your intrest?

That power - and freedom - is not limited to government, that those with power will seek to abuse it and will be allowed to do so by those with a stake in the status quo, that, ultimately, unhappy people will rise up. All things that libertarians I have talked with have failed to grasp.

[someguymp3]

Quote by: RickSp Not to be too provincial, but Ben was referring to the US LP. Earl Grey's noble efforts in early 19th century Great Britain notwithstanding, it is unclear how his largely failed reforms apply to the current LP. Earl Grey's Reform Act got rid of the rotten boroughs but still excluded the majority of the working classes by virtue of the 10 pound property qualification. The payment required to stand for election resulted in aristocrats, landowners or businessmen inevitably being the only candidates, so ultimately very little changed.

It's not the result that matters (and, I'd argue in the long-term a lot changed all though in the short-term it was somewhat of a victory for the aristocracy but this is neither the time nor place), it's the interests represented in that are of interest for me.

Having lived all over, I tend to pull different things from different countries and what their history has told them. So, when I'm in America there are somethings that really get on my nerves, that your average American accepts and the same for Britain, or Japan etc. I'm not just a brit demanding things to be talked about on levels I understand

[Osborn F Enready]

someguymp3 said:
That power - and freedom - is not limited to government, that those with power will seek to abuse it and will be allowed to do so by those with a stake in the status quo, that, ultimately, unhappy people will rise up. All things that libertarians I have talked with have failed to grasp.

I say:
Well pardon me while I laugh, but what Libertarians have you been talking to?

Libertarians are all about keeping government power in check, by keeping it small and checkable.
They support the rights of the minority as well as the majority, by defending ALL rights to be viewed as equal under the law. They support the Bill of Rights in entireity, including many rights not enumerated. They support an armed populace, which in turn, empowers the oppressed a last means of protection and resistance against even the most powerful forms of government known to man. The U.N. is pushing the "status quo", as are all party sanctioned Republicans and Democrats, so I don't know what you mean in that comparison.

Please, do some reading, or continue asking questions, as you have no idea what libertarianism is about.

[Osborn F Enready]

someguymp3 said:
I'm not just a brit demanding things to be talked about on levels I understand.

I say:
Regardless of where your from, or what your ideology, what is more sacred to you than being able to live as you see fit within the guidelines of rights as defined in the United States Bill of Rights?

Is there a reason in specific you feel people cannot be responsible for themselves, and if so, why?
Is there a reason in specific you feel people are not equal under said rights if enforced adequately, and if so, why?

I am getting more curious by the minute.

[someguymp3]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready someguymp3 said: That power - and freedom - is not limited to government, that those with power will seek to abuse it and will be allowed to do so by those with a stake in the status quo, that, ultimately, unhappy people will rise up. All things that libertarians I have talked with have failed to grasp. I say: Well pardon me while I laugh, but what Libertarians have you been talking to? Libertarians are all about keeping government power in check, by keeping it small and checkable. They support the rights of the minority as well as the majority, by defending ALL rights to be viewed as equal under the law. They support the Bill of Rights in entireity, including many rights not enumerated. They support an armed populace, which in turn, empowers the oppressed a last means of protection and resistance against even the most powerful forms of government known to man. The U.N. is pushing the "status quo", as are all party sanctioned Republicans and Democrats, so I don't know what you mean in that comparison. Please, do some reading, or continue asking questions, as you have no idea what libertarianism is about.

Umm, I think you've misinterpreted me. Power is not limited to government means that in turn, with less government the people are less represented, other groups gain the power, abuse it, the people rise up.

[someguymp3]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready someguymp3 said: I'm not just a brit demanding things to be talked about on levels I understand. I say: Regardless of where your from, or what your ideology, what is more sacred to you than being able to live as you see fit within the guidelines of rights as defined in the United States Bill of Rights? Is there a reason in specific you feel people cannot be responsible for themselves, and if so, why? Is there a reason in specific you feel people are not equal under said rights if enforced adequately, and if so, why? I am getting more curious by the minute.

Because, other groups then have this power. People will become less and less equal because of differences in opportunity from birth. The problem will only multiply, how do you plan on providing education to the poor?

[Osborn F Enready]

someguymp3 said:
Power is not limited to government means that in turn, with less government the people are less represented, other groups gain the power, abuse it, the people rise up.

I say:
If that is what you meant, how is it comparable to the current situation?

I mean, right now the U.S. has a HUGE government, that is almost wholly corrupted, has only two official "parties" talked about when speaking politics, and it is the original group of power holders (libertarian philosphies) now trying to retake the system through diplomacy, with revolt as a last resort.

I mean, under your statement above, you are saying that since our government is so huge, it represents the most? Please explain, as this makes NO sense to me as applied to reality.(seven political parties at least, but only two represented, in the biggest governmet on earth.)