• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you agree with this platform?

Do you agree with the Retake Congress Platform?


  • Total voters
    14

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Dunno if anyone gets Campaign for Liberty mailings but a few days ago I got a mailing about Retake Congress > Home. The purpose is to get true liberty loving leaders in Washington. Their platform consists of the following:



The Economy: Honesty and transparency must be returned to our financial system. There should be a thorough investigation and evaluation of the Federal Reserve System. The arbitrary power to create money with no oversight must be ended. There should be no increase in the national debt. The Federal Government needs to stay out of the affairs of private business. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies.

Individual Rights: Individual rights and sovereignty are supreme and inherent. The proper role of government is to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. The federal government must serve the people by protecting these rights within the borders of the states that make up the union. We must repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, elimination of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the American people for the benefit of the government. We must return the checks and balances as intended by the founders. The illegal use of signing statements and illegal use of executive orders must be ended. The government must not regulate the content of the media.


Foreign Policy: We must stand for a strong national defense. The military is the main responsibility of the Federal Government. Our military should be used to protect only our citizens and defend our borders. We need to get our troops out of foreign countries and politics. Our foreign policy should not impose our will or way of life on other nations. We must not act as world police. We must reject international treaties that could destroy our national sovereignty.

Congressional Promise: No member of congress should ever vote for any bill they have not read!
 
More right wing/libertarian garbage, and I agree with a little of it....this scares me..
Its fiverous?.
 
It's too "uncaring" for lack of a better word.

However, I agree that we should stop worrying putting our forces into other countries, let's protect our own nation before "protecting" other ones.

A govt pull out of the economy will lead massive deregulation, which will lead to chaos. The libertarian ideals here will work only if people are, on the majority, honest. Americans are not as honest and responsible as these ideals state. The most deserving country is given to the least deserving people.
 
The one thing I'll give it is they at least aren't completely laughable by calling for the Repeat of PATRIOT while not calling for the repeal of FISA, though they missed Title III of the OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Streets act.

Other than that, in the basic statements its making and the focuses it has, I wouldn't reject the platform but it doesn't exactly make me want to run towards it either. Its kind of just meh, mostly fluff, and focusing on aspects of their ideals I don't care about, disagree with them on, or don't want to go to the extreme they wish to go
 
An end to the regulation of "private business" would permit the internal authoritarianism of that sector to go unchecked and undermine equality of opportunity by facilitating more rapid capital accumulation based on theft. The advocacy of immigration restrictions is also decidedly incompatible with libertarianism.
 
Foreign Policy: We must stand for a strong national defense. The military is the main responsibility of the Federal Government. Our military should be used to protect only our citizens and defend our borders. We need to get our troops out of foreign countries and politics. Our foreign policy should not impose our will or way of life on other nations. We must not act as world police. We must reject international treaties that could destroy our national sovereignty.

The national interest of the US -- that is, the interests of the people of the United States, an expression of their right to pursue happiness -- necessitates that the US military have the capacity to respond to threats to that interest. This means the basing of military assets outside the US and the use of those assets when necessary.

There is no question that the US economy is of vital national interest, and an interest of the people of the US, individually and collectively; to this end the protection of the US ecomomy as it is connected to the 'outside' world is a legitimate use of the US military.
 
I think all those are rather reasonable.
 
The stance on the economy is a little frightening. In that case, it's too libertarian. Other than that it's very refreshing.
 
This part bothers me:

Foreign Policy: We must reject international treaties that could destroy our national sovereignty.

The downsize of such treaties is that we lose freedom of action. The upside is that others lose freedom of action. IMO, that's a decent trade off. When you don't have to resort to war to stop another country's actions, that's a big plus. While we don't get to do whatever we want, but neither does Russia. I view that line as essentially reverting back to the natural state of man rather then under Locke and Hobbes where we get some semblance of security in trading some freedoms. I'd rather America be restricted if everyone else rather then America being unrestricted and everyone is unrestricted.
 
The downsize of such treaties is that we lose freedom of action. The upside is that others lose freedom of action. IMO, that's a decent trade off. When you don't have to resort to war to stop another country's actions, that's a big plus. While we don't get to do whatever we want, but neither does Russia. I view that line as essentially reverting back to the natural state of man rather then under Locke and Hobbes where we get some semblance of security in trading some freedoms. I'd rather America be restricted if everyone else rather then America being unrestricted and everyone is unrestricted.

The problem I have with some of those treaties is we're obligated to follow the rules even when the other party doesn't. The conflict in Iraq, both when we were fighting Sadam's forces and insurgents is a prime example. We abide by the rules of war, but the other side does not. To me if the other side doesn't play by the rules, and it is detrimental to our troops or achieving our goals, we should be cleared of any obligation to follow those same rules.

Bilateral treaties with other nations, where both sides agree to forego certain practices or freedoms for mutual benefit are fine by me. But us agreeing to take certain options off the table completely no matter what our opponents do, doesn't make sense to me.
 
I agree with some of it, but some of it is outlandish.

The main reason I am not libertarian is they go overboard with no compromise on to many issues.
 
The problem I have with some of those treaties is we're obligated to follow the rules even when the other party doesn't.

Hence why those policies needed better enforcement measures. For instance, the bioweapons convention that "made" the US and Soviets reduce their biological weapons. Except that there was absolutely no enforcement mechanism. Just because some treaties are poorly written does not mean that all treaties are poorly written.

The conflict in Iraq, both when we were fighting Sadam's forces and insurgents is a prime example. We abide by the rules of war, but the other side does not. To me if the other side doesn't play by the rules, and it is detrimental to our troops or achieving our goals, we should be cleared of any obligation to follow those same rules.

I was thinking more along the lines of larger conflicts. Like outright invasions. Treaties related to tactical issues on the ground during conflicts have always been difficult to enforce. That doesn't mean we abandon the NPT or the WTO.

Bilateral treaties with other nations, where both sides agree to forego certain practices or freedoms for mutual benefit are fine by me. But us agreeing to take certain options off the table completely no matter what our opponents do, doesn't make sense to me.

Then we shouldn't agree to treaties that have significant deficiencies in enforcement. That still doesn't provide an argument against my broader notion. By restricting the freedom of action of the US, we restrict the freedom of action of others. I'd really prefer not to have go to war to stop countries from engaging in things we don't want. That's an exorbitantly bad precedent to set.
 
Hence why those policies needed better enforcement measures. For instance, the bioweapons convention that "made" the US and Soviets reduce their biological weapons. Except that there was absolutely no enforcement mechanism. Just because some treaties are poorly written does not mean that all treaties are poorly written.

The problem I see is how do you create effective enforcement mechanisms? Since there is no international treaty police force to enforce them, I see only two options. Retaliation - you break the treaty, so I'm going to break it as well. This can be effective, but it can also lead to escalation of hostility over realtively minor issues. Or immediately using military force to enforce the treaty.

Some treaties could be better served by increasing accountability through inspections or whatever, but as far as actually enforcing the terms of a treaty once its broken, I don't see many practical options.

I was thinking more along the lines of larger conflicts. Like outright invasions. Treaties related to tactical issues on the ground during conflicts have always been difficult to enforce. That doesn't mean we abandon the NPT or the WTO.

I don't advocate abandoning all international organizations or treaties. I'm not an isolationist by any stretch.

Then we shouldn't agree to treaties that have significant deficiencies in enforcement. That still doesn't provide an argument against my broader notion. By restricting the freedom of action of the US, we restrict the freedom of action of others. I'd really prefer not to have go to war to stop countries from engaging in things we don't want. That's an exorbitantly bad precedent to set.

I agree that surrendering a portion of our soverignty in exchange for other nations surrendering the same rights can be in our best interests. The problem is when we unilaterally surrender certain rights and our opponents or enemies do not. We're making things more difficult for us by taking certain options away, while the other side is not similarly restrained.
 
Back
Top Bottom