2008 Libertarian Platform

[5stringJeff]

I don't agree with every plank, but I do like the Statement of Principles:

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

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

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

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

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

The platform in its relatively short entirety can be found here:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

[Abbey Marie]

Jeff, where do the Libertarians stand on abortion?

[PostmodernProphet]

I could pick several bones with the platform....in principle they sound fine, but in practice they tend to go to an unacceptable extreme....

for example, to say that government should not interfere with business sounds good but there are things that government does with respect to business which I believe are essential....

if, for example, there were no restrictions against monopolies I believe we would quickly find ourselves in a world in which free trade was restricted, not by government, but by human avarice.....likewise, given the propensity of businesses to cut corners where public health is concerned even in an environment of health inspections, I would hesitate to trust the food industry if those inspections were done away with.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Jeff, where do the Libertarians stand on abortion?

the platform says individual choice....no government involvement...

[Abbey Marie]

the platform says individual choice....no government involvement...

I kind of figured- it's consistent with their overall policy.
That's a deal-breaker for me.

[Sitarro]

Third parties are a pipe dream, unfortunately, all they do is take votes from the 2 parties that are really in control....... they can't possibly win, they just allow the other side to win. Perot is the perfect example, a lot of people liked him, liked what he stood for. Because of him, and those that voted for him, we got Clinton for 8 years.

I don't like what has happened to either of the parties, Democrat or Republican, but third parties aren't the answer. Even if the Libertarian candidate was to squeak by, what could he do as President? Nothing, he would be shut down by both parties..... it might be the first time in a long time they would actually work together.

The only thing we can do is to get rid of the shit heads in our parties and let them know that we are getting rid of them and why. The Ted Kennedys, Robert Fuckin Byrd?????? who could possibly defend these assholes. On the Republican side, there are plenty too. Vote them out. We need to start thinking of what is best for America and not what team we want to win.

How full of shit has this "political race" been so far. With the communication system that is in place, we have a bunch of disingenuous asswipes cruising around from state to state in 757s, burning 1200 gallons an hour, giving speeches on conserving energy. We have almost an entire population of a minority race that is willing to vote for an empty headed suit because he is kind of the same color as they are. We have women that will vote for any woman, no matter how full of shit she is, just to see a woman President. This is not the way we should be picking leaders in 2008!!!!!!!!! This isn't high school! It's not a football game, it's our lives!

The people can bitch about who is running all they want, it is the public that has screwed up the system by not caring enough to be informed about who they are voting for and why they are voting in the first place. It is the public that has caused a bunch of light weights to get into office, from both sides, the public is voting for who they think will GIVE them the most.This isn't "Let's Make A Deal", it isn't a popularity contest, it isn't American Idol, it's about bringing in a CEO that will run our country like a successful business first and help those that need it second. One that will protect the country first and protect the defenseless second.

The public needs to engage and not sit there with their hand out....... yea sure, that's going to happen...... never mind.

[5stringJeff]

if, for example, there were no restrictions against monopolies I believe we would quickly find ourselves in a world in which free trade was restricted, not by government, but by human avarice.....

Even in an atmosphere that allowed monopolies to exist, they tend to be broken by niche businesses that chip away at the monopolist's market.


likewise, given the propensity of businesses to cut corners where public health is concerned even in an environment of health inspections, I would hesitate to trust the food industry if those inspections were done away with.....

I'm not sure I'd want to do away with all food inspections, but even if they didn't exist, market forces (i.e. business reputation) would quickly be tarnished if a firm offered bad food. Remember the e.coli incident at Jack-In-The-Box about 15 years ago? I still have relatives that won't eat there because of that.

In all, I think we could get by with a whole lot less government regulation in the market than we have.

[5stringJeff]

I kind of figured- it's consistent with their overall policy.
That's a deal-breaker for me.

I understand Abbey. I don't agree with the plank, as I see the protection of the life of the fetus as more important than the liberty of the mother.

[5stringJeff]

Third parties are a pipe dream, unfortunately, all they do is take votes from the 2 parties that are really in control....... they can't possibly win, they just allow the other side to win. Perot is the perfect example, a lot of people liked him, liked what he stood for. Because of him, and those that voted for him, we got Clinton for 8 years.

I don't like what has happened to either of the parties, Democrat or Republican, but third parties aren't the answer. Even if the Libertarian candidate was to squeak by, what could he do as President? Nothing, he would be shut down by both parties..... it might be the first time in a long time they would actually work together.

The only thing we can do is to get rid of the shit heads in our parties and let them know that we are getting rid of them and why. The Ted Kennedys, Robert Fuckin Byrd?????? who could possibly defend these assholes. On the Republican side, there are plenty too. Vote them out. We need to start thinking of what is best for America and not what team we want to win.

How full of shit has this "political race" been so far. With the communication system that is in place, we have a bunch of disingenuous asswipes cruising around from state to state in 757s, burning 1200 gallons an hour, giving speeches on conserving energy. We have almost an entire population of a minority race that is willing to vote for an empty headed suit because he is kind of the same color as they are. We have women that will vote for any woman, no matter how full of shit she is, just to see a woman President. This is not the way we should be picking leaders in 2008!!!!!!!!! This isn't high school! It's not a football game, it's our lives!

The people can bitch about who is running all they want, it is the public that has screwed up the system by not caring enough to be informed about who they are voting for and why they are voting in the first place. It is the public that has caused a bunch of light weights to get into office, from both sides, the public is voting for who they think will GIVE them the most.This isn't "Let's Make A Deal", it isn't a popularity contest, it isn't American Idol, it's about bringing in a CEO that will run our country like a successful business first and help those that need it second. One that will protect the country first and protect the defenseless second.

The public needs to engage and not sit there with their hand out....... yea sure, that's going to happen...... never mind.

Sitarro, when both parties run candidates that no longer represent the views you espouse, then what? Vote for no one? Hold your nose and vote for McCain? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[PostmodernProphet]

Even in an atmosphere that allowed monopolies to exist, they tend to be broken by niche businesses that chip away at the monopolist's market.

/boggle....that isn't how it worked in the 1800s

[Sitarro]

Sitarro, when both parties run candidates that no longer represent the views you espouse, then what? Vote for no one? Hold your nose and vote for McCain? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

I understand that but a vote for a third party in this particular election will give the Democrats the Presidency and Congress, that is simply not acceptable. You'll never get a third party after they destroy the country.

[5stringJeff]

I understand that but a vote for a third party in this particular election will give the Democrats the Presidency and Congress, that is simply not acceptable. You'll never get a third party after they destroy the country.

It's always a "vital" election year. In which election would it be acceptable for the "wrong" party to win?

[PostmodernProphet]

the only way a third party can survive is to set itself in the middle between the Republicans and Democrats.....there isn't enough room on the edges......

[Sitarro]

It's always a "vital" election year. In which election would it be acceptable for the "wrong" party to win?

I could have predicted that answer, it's the standard liberatarian talking point, the same was said when Perot voters screwed the country up for 8 years. Vote however you want, just don't bitch about what happens when you help that asshole and his friends take over the Legislative and Executive branches and bring in the most liberal Supreme Court judges imaginable..... not to mention the many federal judges. Enjoy Homo marriage, taxes raised, severe cuts in defense, much higher fuel prices and what comes with that and no chance of abortion reform. Blame yourself and those that vote for a dildo like Barr, it's called reality. I didn't want McCain either but I certainly don't want Obama leading a Democrat Congress. If McCain is in, there's a chance that nothing will be allowed to pass, if he isn't, they will get whatever they want.

[Noir]

the only way a third party can survive is to set itself in the middle between the Republicans and Democrats.....there isn't enough room on the edges......

The problem being when you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic from both directions.

[Sitarro]

1992 part deux times 100!

[PostmodernProphet]

The problem being when you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic from both directions.

true.....I suppose the alternative then is to go stand somewhere where there is no traffic......

[5stringJeff]

I could have predicted that answer, it's the standard liberatarian talking point, the same was said when Perot voters screwed the country up for 8 years. Vote however you want, just don't bitch about what happens when you help that asshole and his friends take over the Legislative and Executive branches and bring in the most liberal Supreme Court judges imaginable..... not to mention the many federal judges. Enjoy Homo marriage, taxes raised, severe cuts in defense, much higher fuel prices and what comes with that and no chance of abortion reform. Blame yourself and those that vote for a dildo like Barr, it's called reality. I didn't want McCain either but I certainly don't want Obama leading a Democrat Congress. If McCain is in, there's a chance that nothing will be allowed to pass, if he isn't, they will get whatever they want.

"Reality" is that John McCain and the GOP do not represent my views, and so voting for McCain would be just as bad as voting for Obama. People should not vote for candidates that don't represent their views just to keep someone else out of office.

[Abbey Marie]

"Reality" is that John McCain and the GOP do not represent my views, and so voting for McCain would be just as bad as voting for Obama. People should not vote for candidates that don't represent their views just to keep someone else out of office.

While Obama is scary indeed, the main reason I am voting for McCain is that I want the most conservative person possible to nominate judges and justices for the next 4 or 8 years. There are few powers of the President that, IMO, have more long-term and long-reaching effects than that.

[Sitarro]

"Reality" is that John McCain and the GOP do not represent my views, and so voting for McCain would be just as bad as voting for Obama. People should not vote for candidates that don't represent their views just to keep someone else out of office.


Just as bad huh? Really, how's that? I wait with sincere curiosity to see how you justify a statement that ridiculous.
Your childlike lack of understanding of the reality, that is politics, is amazing. News flash Jeff, you will never find your perfect candidate that is also electable...... that is reality....... not that I am trying to insult you personally, certainly don't want to do that, but you are living in a dream world, where ..... what you think is best is also what we all should believe........ again childlike but not unusual for a person with a high IQ but very little common sense, saw it a lot in Bill Clinton.
The fact is, your selfish vote will be useless for anyone but Obama, that is reality. But..... as long as it makes you feel better about yourself, that is really is all that's important........ right?

Again, I am NOT trying to insult you or anyone you know or ever have met, personally. I am certainly not trying to break any board rules, though I feel that I am walking on eggshells every time I post now........ feeling a bit singled out.

[Sitarro]

While Obama is scary indeed, the main reason I am voting for McCain is that I want the most conservative person possible to nominate judges and justices for the next 4 or 8 years. There are few powers of the President that, IMO, have more long-term and long-reaching effects than that.

I had no doubt that you would get it Abbey....... now is definitely not the time to grab your ball and go home in a tantrum because the perfect candidate doesn't exist. Whenever I think of Libertarians, I think of this guy......:bang3:. McCain is far from who I would want in the Whitehouse but Obama, a person that thinks partial birth abortion is not only OK but is also a right, isn't not someone I want making any decisions except maybe which pattie to put in the bun at McDonalds.

[5stringJeff]

Just as bad huh? Really, how's that? I wait with sincere curiosity to see how you justify a statement that ridiculous.
Your childlike lack of understanding of the reality, that is politics, is amazing. News flash Jeff, you will never find your perfect candidate that is also electable...... that is reality....... not that I am trying to insult you personally, certainly don't want to do that, but you are living in a dream world, where ..... what you think is best is also what we all should believe........ again childlike but not unusual for a person with a high IQ but very little common sense, saw it a lot in Bill Clinton.
The fact is, your selfish vote will be useless for anyone but Obama, that is reality. But..... as long as it makes you feel better about yourself, that is really is all that's important........ right?

You seem to think we should vote pragmatically. I think we should vote as we see fit to vote. If I see fit to vote for a candidate who has a smaller chance of winning, is my opinion somehow less valid? Did the 37 million people who voted for Mondale waste their vote? How about the 27 million who voted for Goldwater, or the 22 million who voted for Dewey in 1944 against FDR? Were their votes OK because they voted for a candidate from a "mainstream" party, whereas a vote for a third party candidate is a "waste?"
I see a vote for McCain as a vote for more restrictions on my right to speak freely, more infringements on my right to bear arms, and less protection from illegal immigrants entering this country. While I commend McCain for some of his lesser-known campaign planks (like his health care plan), in my opinion, he is not a friend of liberty. Nor is Obama, who wants to decrease free trade with other nations and socialize the health care system in America. So I am left to vote for a candidate, and a party, who cares about freedom.

[MtnBiker]

Voting 3rd party in a Presidential election is fine, but it will have no effect of electing the values in a canidate for President. Unless some unforseen event happens, McCain or Obama will be the next President.

[5stringJeff]

Voting 3rd party in a Presidential election is fine, but it will have no effect of electing the values in a canidate for President. Unless some unforseen event happens, McCain or Obama will be the next President.

I don't have any illusions of Bob Barr winning any type of three-way race. I would like to see him take about 5-8% of the vote - enough for the Libertarian party to start showing up on people's radar screens.

[MtnBiker]

I don't have any illusions of Bob Barr winning any type of three-way race. I would like to see him take about 5-8% of the vote - enough for the Libertarian party to start showing up on people's radar screens.

What purpose would Barr have 5%-8% of the vote serve? The Libertarian party will not likely have large enough support to put a canidate in the White House, if they do the platform will become broader. The platform will have to be broader to have more appeal, with that happening voters will make compramises in their values to vote for the Libertarian canidate. How would that be different than voting for a Democrat or Republican?

[No_Socialism]

Glenn Beck Interview with Bob Barr (link (http://belowthebeltway.com/2008/06/07/bob-barr-on-glenn-beck-2/)):

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Mbi3JVaTdw&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Mbi3JVaTdw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mHoF6lYtnRo&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mHoF6lYtnRo&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z1yuJboCpo8&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z1yuJboCpo8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pI-TrTXS8io&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pI-TrTXS8io&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PBMirWOR3JY&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PBMirWOR3JY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VETUXKhzwjU&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VETUXKhzwjU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[5stringJeff]

Here's a transcript of a Glenn Beck/Bob Barr interview from May 22. They talked a lot about the Patriot Act.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/10360/

[5stringJeff]

What purpose would Barr have 5%-8% of the vote serve? The Libertarian party will not likely have large enough support to put a canidate in the White House, if they do the platform will become broader. The platform will have to be broader to have more appeal, with that happening voters will make compramises in their values to vote for the Libertarian canidate. How would that be different than voting for a Democrat or Republican?

First, the LP has never garnered more than 1.1% of the vote (in 1980). So 5-8% of the vote would be a huge increase for the party. Second, getting 5% of the vote in individual states makes it a "major party," which makes it easier to get the party's candidates on the ballot. Third, given the extreme discontent with the GOP this election cycle (of which I am part), the LP has the chance to expand its voter rolls. As far as broadening the platform, I don't see that as a bad thing. It would be good to bring more people into the party and have a larger discourse about how to practically govern and provide more liberty to Americans.