Libertarian Party Press Release - Page 13

Xhad · #**121** 10-05-2006, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to vote Libertarian, if they can solve the problem where many of their candidates are borderline nutbars.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the meantime you will feel content voting to take one up the pooper?

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably still would be "taking one up the pooper" if he votes in someone he considers a nutbar.

Do you realize how much you don't help your cause by behaving this way?

jackaaron · #**122** 10-05-2006, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"20 Things You Must Believe to be a Libertarian"

See if you're still interested after reading this... not a whole lot of people will believe all twenty. I'm pretty close to 20 of 20. #1 is somewhat specious - they would be too high if gov't were the way Libertarians would have it, but are not high considering all the things the gov't currently spends money doing...

(reprinted with author's permission)

01. Taxes are way too high.

02. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a vital individual right.

03. Freedom OF religion by necessity must include freedom FROM religion.

04. The chief cause of societal problems today is government solutions.

05. Government should limit itself to the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution.

06. If you harm or endanger no others, what you do is not the business of the government. A man’s damnation is his own business.

07. The Drug War does more damage to society than the drugs, and violates the Constitution as well.

08. Malum prohibita (Victimless Crime laws) have no Constitutional basis and should be done away with.

09. Government should have to obey the same laws it expects citizens and corporations to obey. Especially regarding the environment and labor.

10. Social Security should be privatized and forced to obey the laws. A government ordered ponzi scheme is still a ponzi scheme.

11. Freedom of speech includes the internet, and political conventions. Citizens should not be forced to stand in outdoor prison cells euphemistically called “Free Speech Zones” to state their opinions far from media or officials.

12. Free immigration strengthens America. Illegal immigration should be punished, legal immigration should be free, fair, and easy. However immigrants should not expect free handouts. All they should get is what anyone should get, a fair chance to rise as far as their abilities let them.

13. The welfare state doesn’t work. End it. Establish a $1 for $1 tax deduction for charitable contributions.

14. Our educational system is broken. End the federal Department of Education and return this issue to the states.

15. The tax system is in dire need of reform. Limit deductions to a very few. Your yearly taxes should be easy enough that a small postcard size form is all that is needed to figure them out, be you a billionaire or impoverished.

16. Amending the Constitution is a very serious thing and should not be advocated lightly or for mere matters of policy. Banning gay marriage or flag burning via amendment is not only wrong, but the attempt cheapens the Constitution itself.

18. The government should not be allowed to infringe the rights of citizens by collecting databases of legal activities by citizens. National ID cards or chips, V-chips, clipper-chips and the like should be choices by free individuals, not enforced by law.

19. The Constitution means what it says. We should not be going to war without an explicit declaration of war by congress as provided by the Constitution. Reacting to attack is fine, planning and executing an invasion sans such a declaration is not.

20. Free and fair debate is essential to a democratic republic. Any candidate on the ballot in an area large enough to give them a mathematical chance to win an election should be allowed in any debates, appearances, or forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand 8 too well. Would drunk driving, then, be done away with? You would actually have to hit someone, while drunk, for there to be some type of punishment. Therefore, the idea would be: drive drunk all you want. Just don’t hit anyone.

I also don't understand how 13 would work. How does the 1 for 1 replace welfare, or people that would need it?

Thanks for any explanations.

Xhad · #**123** 10-05-2006, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand 8 too well. Would drunk driving, then, be done away with? You would actually have to hit someone, while drunk, for there to be some type of punishment. Therefore, the idea would be: drive drunk all you want. Just don’t hit anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some libertarians who believe this, but (I believe) not that many. Most agree that recklessly endangering other people is not a victimless crime, the people being endangered are the "victims" even if they aren't necessarily hurt by it.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't understand how 13 would work. How does the 1 for 1 replace welfare, or people that would need it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The assertion is that this encourages people to give to their local charities, so instead of the government sponsoring a local soup kitchen for the homeless (for example), you could go write them a check and then deduct it from your taxes.

bkholdem · #**124** 10-05-2006, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to vote Libertarian, if they can solve the problem where many of their candidates are borderline nutbars.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the meantime you will feel content voting to take one up the pooper?

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably still would be "taking one up the pooper" if he votes in someone he considers a nutbar.

Do you realize how much you don't help your cause by behaving this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Voting to take one up the pooper and voting to not take one up the pooper and having circumstances be such that you wind up taking one up the pooper are very different things.

I do not realize how much I do not help my cause, can you quantify the degree to which that is so for me?

Dornkirk · #**125** 10-05-2006, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand 8 too well. Would drunk driving, then, be done away with? You would actually have to hit someone, while drunk, for there to be some type of punishment. Therefore, the idea would be: drive drunk all you want. Just don’t hit anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drunk driving would not be a victimless crime because doing it places others at a higher risk. A good example of one would be not wearing your seat belt.

Raliegh · #**126** 10-05-2006, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to vote Libertarian, if they can solve the problem where many of their candidates are borderline nutbars.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Raliegh · #**127** 10-05-2006, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand 8 too well. Would drunk driving, then, be done away with? You would actually have to hit someone, while drunk, for there to be some type of punishment. Therefore, the idea would be: drive drunk all you want. Just don’t hit anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drunk driving would not be a victimless crime because doing it places others at a higher risk. A good example of one would be not wearing your seat belt.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you don't have health insurance, drive without a seat belt, and can't pay for the 30 days of ICU care and the brain surgery you require after your accident? That hurts society if we have to pick up the tab for your medical bills, and it doesn't seem morally defensible to just let you die because you can't pay for your care.

bkholdem · #**128** 10-05-2006, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand 8 too well. Would drunk driving, then, be done away with? You would actually have to hit someone, while drunk, for there to be some type of punishment. Therefore, the idea would be: drive drunk all you want. Just don’t hit anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drunk driving would not be a victimless crime because doing it places others at a higher risk. A good example of one would be not wearing your seat belt.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you don't have health insurance, drive without a seat belt, and can't pay for the 30 days of ICU care and the brain surgery you require after your accident? That hurts society if we have to pick up the tab for your medical bills, and it doesn't seem morally defensible to just let you die because you can't pay for your care.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did some bad stuff and am suffering as a result, please send me a check. i'm being nice and asking, i think you want to force others to do it..

Dornkirk · #**129** 10-05-2006, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand 8 too well. Would drunk driving, then, be done away with? You would actually have to hit someone, while drunk, for there to be some type of punishment. Therefore, the idea would be: drive drunk all you want. Just don’t hit anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drunk driving would not be a victimless crime because doing it places others at a higher risk. A good example of one would be not wearing your seat belt.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you don't have health insurance, drive without a seat belt, and can't pay for the 30 days of ICU care and the brain surgery you require after your accident? That hurts society if we have to pick up the tab for your medical bills, and it doesn't seem morally defensible to just let you die because you can't pay for your care.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are any number of risky activities that are legal. Should we outlaw all of those because we may have to fit the bill if someone gets hurt?

As a side note, if it's morally defensible to allow someone die because because they can't pay for care (I think it is); does that necessarily mean the government should enforce this morality? Do you believe that society is devoid of morality as a whole to the level that it would allow the victim to die in this situation?

There are compelling arguments on both sides of those questions. To tie this back in to the main topic, a Libertarian would probably answer no to both.

mport1 · #**130** 10-05-2006, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand 8 too well. Would drunk driving, then, be done away with? You would actually have to hit someone, while drunk, for there to be some type of punishment. Therefore, the idea would be: drive drunk all you want. Just don’t hit anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drunk driving would not be a victimless crime because doing it places others at a higher risk. A good example of one would be not wearing your seat belt.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you don't have health insurance, drive without a seat belt, and can't pay for the 30 days of ICU care and the brain surgery you require after your accident? That hurts society if we have to pick up the tab for your medical bills, and it doesn't seem morally defensible to just let you die because you can't pay for your care.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you choose to not wear a seatbelt, you need to accept the consequences. In that scenario, either insurance will pay the cost, the hostipal could choose to, friends, relatives, or charities could choose to. What is not morally justifiable is stealing my money to pay for somebody's stupid decision. People do a lot of stupid things, and I should not be forced to pay for them. I should also be allowed to make "stupid" decisions as I please although I must take responsibility for my actions.