Libertarian Issues (1 Viewer)

I pulled a list of issues that the Libertarian party calls for on it's website(Issues | Libertarian Party). I here alot about big "L" vs little "l" Libertarians, so which of these issues do the libertarians here believe in.

If you are not a Libertarian, can you please not answer this poll. let's leave it to the Libertarians please.

Edit: Poll added

The elimination of drug prohibition, interventionism in foreign policy, and gun bans, though my own proposed "solutions" there are still something radically different than anything the "Libertarian" Party would propose. I also support full amnesty rather than partial amnesty for illegal immigrants, and don't believe that any civil libertarian justification for anything else is even conceivable. :shrug:

A reminder: please do not vote in this poll if you are not a libertarian...Joe, I am looking at you right now...

Oh, and third poll option, the first word should be "avoid", not "avid"...

rage hardly strikes me as one who leans anti-authoritarian either.

I could only agree with two of the items on the list:

End drug prohibition
Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that very many actual libertarians would actually agree with semi-amnesty for illegal aliens. A lot of them tend to be very xenophobic.

Kandahar said:

I could only agree with two of the items on the list:



I'm not sure that very many actual libertarians would actually agree with semi-amnesty for illegal aliens. A lot of them tend to be very xenophobic.

Click to expand...

:2brickwal

When did you become a libertarian?

Oh, and xenophobia is not required to oppose amnesty programs.

I am a sorta-small-L-libertarian, so I answered the poll.

I agree, to some degree/level, with all the issues except any sort of amnesty to illegals.

There is one poll option that I didn't answer that I have to call into question. "Avid interventionism in foreign affairs" is not, to my knowlege, a position of the Libertarian Party or a majority of serious libertarians...in fact, the opposite would be true.

I'm wondering what led you to put that issue, formulated that way, on the poll?

My own position on interventionism is somewhat in flux. On the one hand, I'm really not crazy about it: we tend to get involved in places where we don't necessarily have a strong security intrest, give the wrong nations a "pass" who might really be a threat, and conduct our operations with something less than shining genius when we do intervene. OTOH, I still think that once in a while it is a choice between "fight them over there, now; or here on our own soil later", so my thoughts on foreign interventionism are mixed.

As for drugs, I see no reason not to legalize weed and maybe some other drugs, and plenty of reasons that it could be beneficial, but I have a hard time agreeing with the legalization of something as toxic as Meth or as bad as PCP.

Generally speaking I support the free market, and free market medical care, BUT I have come to recognize that a few essential bits of regulation would be dangerous to do without.

Well there ya go... I'm not a full-bore libertarian but take it for what it is worth.

G.

Do we have an inclusive definition other than the Party for the purposes of this thread, incidentally? I'll say anyone on the bottom half of the Political Compass, and would demand the bottom left corner in one of my more rigid moments:



Though Ron Paul's placed in the top half. :shrug:

Goshin said:

There is one poll option that I didn't answer that I have to call into question. "Avid interventionism in foreign affairs" is not, to my knowlege, a position of the Libertarian Party or a majority of serious libertarians...in fact, the opposite would be true.

Click to expand...

That is called a typo that I failed to catch. It should read "avoid", not "avid".

And I consider you a libertarian of some sort, so thank you for voting.

Redress said:

A reminder: please do not vote in this poll if you are not a libertarian...Joe, I am looking at you right now...

Oh, and third poll option, the first word should be "avoid", not "avid"...

Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't read the post first, and you worded the poll like anybody could take it.

:badpc:

Redress said:

:2brickwal

When did you become a libertarian?

Click to expand...

Heh like most people I vote in polls before I read the post.

Redress said:

Oh, and xenophobia is not required to oppose amnesty programs.

Click to expand...

No, but being xenophobic generally (with possible rare exceptions) precludes one from supporting them.

Kandahar said:

No, but being xenophobic generally (with possible rare exceptions) precludes one from supporting them.

Click to expand...

Granted I guess. I just find it annoying since I am not xenophobic(I don't think), but am 100 % against any sort of amnesty.

Xenophobia, like racism toward mestizo immigrants, is of course not a necessary or ever-present element of opposition to amnesty, but is of course far more prevalent among opponents than among supporters. I've always been dubious of "libertarians" who strongly oppose the elimination of immigration restrictions; such opposition to the freedom of movement and escape from exploitative economic conditions has never struck me as particularly anti-authoritarian.

Agnapostate said:

Xenophobia, like racism toward mestizo immigrants, is of course not a necessary or ever-present element of opposition to amnesty, but is of course far more prevalent among opponents than among supporters. I've always been dubious of "libertarians" who strongly oppose the elimination of immigration restrictions; such opposition to the freedom of movement and escape from exploitative economic conditions has never struck me as particularly anti-authoritarian.

Click to expand...

And many of them go beyond merely opposing amnesty. Many libertarians use the same xenophobic "our country is being invaded" rhetoric that authoritarian conservatives use.

Kandahar said:

And many of them go beyond merely opposing amnesty. Many libertarians use the same xenophobic "our country is being invaded" rhetoric that authoritarian conservatives use.

Click to expand...

Yeah, nationalism to the point of jingoism is never an element that's struck me as something particularly "libertarian" either...perhaps simply more evidence that the movers and shakers behind the LP are largely composed of rightists who've relocated and hidden behind a new front.

Agnapostate said:

Yeah, nationalism to the point of jingoism is never an element that's struck me as something particularly "libertarian" either...perhaps simply more evidence that the movers and shakers behind the LP are largely composed of rightists who've relocated and hidden behind a new front.

Click to expand...

That does not make sense since the LP favors semi-amnesty. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

Voted for all but the illegal amnesty one. As long as there exists benefits to be derived for illegals that require the government to confiscate thru tax or other means, we cannot allow people who have no stake in this country or for the people of this country to stay. When there is no automatic benefit for coming here and I assume that the immigrants enter by the gate then of course there is nothing for an amnesty to be declared. In other words lets liberalize the quotas and means for the immigrant workers to come in and not give millions of illegals a legal pass to be permanent residents who have no loyalty to our country and may even have inimical effect on our nation.

Kandahar said:

And many of them go beyond merely opposing amnesty. Many libertarians use the same xenophobic "our country is being invaded" rhetoric that authoritarian conservatives use.

Click to expand...

Look, Kan, I got nothing against Mexicans. They have great food, pretty decent music, and some pretty hot chicks too. :mrgreen:

I have nothing against any immigrant to comes here legally.

But what do you call it when you have millions upon millions of illegals entering the country, refusing to learn the common language or assimilate into the culture, and in some cases at least actually advocating that they should take over portions of the nation?

Google "reconquista", "Aztlan" and "La Raza".
Ask some medical professionals about the problems they have with illegals recieving treatment then disappearing without paying a cent.
Ask some cops about how many drunk-driving fatalities or no-insurance-accidents turn out to involve illegals.

It is a problem that needs to be addressed, xenophobia is not required.

"Mexicans" are not a race. Your other claims are based on observably inaccurate rightist talking points, I'm afraid. So no, we have to come back to the initial issue of xenophobic and racist attitudes toward mestizos being more common among anti-immigration lobbies than pro-immigration lobbies, along with the authoritarian mindset typically associated with those attitudes.

It is, as mentioned, a problem that needs to be addressed.

Laissez Faire capitalism

I don't believe in the complete absence of regulation. The Commerce Clause in the US Constitution permits the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce, so that's fine with me, also, I believe in the enforcement of fraud laws and contracts. Other than that, I don't really agree with the idea of economic regulation and central management.

End drug prohibition

Absolutely, although I think it should be done incrementally and carefully while allowing localities to determine the regulatory nature of the manufacture and sale of drugs within their respective communities.

avoid interventionism in foreign policy

I'm not adverse to alliances like Jefferson was but I agree with his notion of free trade and commerce.

I wouldn't necessarily leave the UN or NATO but I would always affirm the supremacy of US sovereignty over the laws of international bodies.

I don't feel any obligation to intervene in the affairs of other countries unless it is in our best interests or necessary to world security.

Pragmatic, peaceful, diplomatic, and commercial. That describes my foreign policy views.

End foreign aid

Absolutely. The government has no place sending tax money to other countries.

End gun bans

Yup.

Deregulate healthcare

Yup, although I'm not adverse to providing health care to the truly needy.

Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)

No. Enter this country legally and culturally assimilate yourself or leave.

End welfare

Incrementally, although I would leave transitional / temporary assistance programs in place.

Allow opting out of Social Security

It's a Ponzi Scheme, so yes.

Goshin said:

Look, Kan, I got nothing against Mexicans. They have great food, pretty decent music, and some pretty hot chicks too. :mrgreen:

I have nothing against any immigrant to comes here legally.

But what do you call it when you have millions upon millions of illegals entering the country, refusing to learn the common language or assimilate into the culture, and in some cases at least actually advocating that they should take over portions of the nation?

Google "reconquista", "Aztlan" and "La Raza".
Ask some medical professionals about the problems they have with illegals recieving treatment then disappearing without paying a cent.
Ask some cops about how many drunk-driving fatalities or no-insurance-accidents turn out to involve illegals.

It is a problem that needs to be addressed, xenophobia is not required.

Click to expand...

It's a problem, and I am 100 % against illegal immigrants. What it is not is some kind of "invasion". It's that kind of over the top comment that makes it hard to take some anti-illegals serious(that CNN guy comes to mind, what's his name?).

Lou Dobbs? He's a propagandist and authoritarian in every sense of the word.

Agnapostate said:

Lou Dobbs? He's a propagandist and authoritarian in every sense of the word.

Click to expand...

Of course, anyone who doesn't love illegal aliens is authoritarian.

Ethereal said:

Of course, anyone who doesn't love illegal aliens is authoritarian.

Click to expand...

I have been called alot of things on this board, but never an authoritarian before...

Goshin said:

But what do you call it when you have millions upon millions of illegals entering the country,

Click to expand...

If that's a problem in some parts of the nation, then we just need to spread them out more, so that they aren't concentrated in a few states and suddenly overwhelming the local economy. I wouldn't be opposed to an amnesty program that involved them being required to relocate to a particular state for a few years.

Goshin said:

refusing to learn the common language or assimilate into the culture,

Click to expand...

Very few of them refuse to learn English. While the first generation often has trouble learning the language (just like every other wave of immigrants), almost all second-generation Latinos speak English as their primary language.

As for assimilating into our culture...Latino (especially Mexican) culture is surprisingly similar to American culture already.

Goshin said:

and in some cases at least actually advocating that they should take over portions of the nation?

Google "reconquista", "Aztlan" and "La Raza".

Click to expand...

Very few immigrants want to "take over" anything. If they wanted to live in Mexico, they would have stayed in Mexico.

Goshin said:

Ask some medical professionals about the problems they have with illegals recieving treatment then disappearing without paying a cent.

Click to expand...

Which is why I think that the government should pick up the tab for anyone who stiffs the emergency room (after requiring that everyone have health insurance, of course).

Goshin said:

Ask some cops about how many drunk-driving fatalities or no-insurance-accidents turn out to involve illegals.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the fact that they are illegal? US citizens never drive drunk?