Libertarian Issues

Laissez Faire capitalism-

A decentralized form of economic productivity is superior to centralized statism.
I favor a decentralized economy as long as there is no corporate person hood.

End drug prohibition-

Yep, it serves no other purpose except to militarize law enforcement.

Avoid interventionism in foreign policy-

Agree completely with the caveat of defense and maybe taking down trade barriers for both us and the competing country.

End foreign aid-

A welfare class of nation states does us no good.
It would be better if these nations citizens rise up and topple their inferior governments.

End gun bans-

I need the tools of tyrants so I can, if need be, commit the same intensity of violence that they would inflict upon me.

Deregulate medical care-

Regulated medical care has been the primary reason for cost inflation.

Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)-

I'm torn on this for several reasons.

I would be in favor of full amnesty, if the people receiving it were not allowed to vote.
With that not being the case, I favor a gradual integration after others, who have been waiting, are taken care of.
That of course comes with the requirements of not being on any state or federal aid for at least the last 5 years, a restriction on the use of state aid for at least 5-10 years, no outstanding warrants or unpaid tickets, and other legal problems.

If these people do not want to become citizens then they can see themselves out.

End welfare-

The cases where someone actually needs welfare are so few and far between that it doesn't necessitate it's existence.

Allow opting out of Social Security-

It should have never been created or made mandatory for people to participate in an inferior retirement plan such as SS.

It's a naturally discriminatory program.

Redress said:

We are not going to see eye to eye on this, but I think we at least see where we draw the line. To me, the fact that they chose, willingly, to violate our laws means they should not be allowed to stay here as a citizen or on a work visa or whatever.

Click to expand...

You're trapped in a confused cycle of circular reasoning that doesn't lead you to examine the actual ethical basis behind immigration restrictions to begin with, instead choosing to point to the law without actual logical analysis of it. That would be a poor choice if one wanted to claim that civil rights era blacks' violation of Jim Crow laws was evidence of their criminality and justification for racially discriminatory legal policy against them, and it's a poor choice in this case also.

For the illegal alien discussion, please go here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/57389-illegal-aliens-amnesty.html

Harry Guerrilla said:

[

I need the tools of tyrants so I can, if need be, commit the same intensity of violence that they would inflict upon me.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your answers. Just one comment on the above quote: you cannot ever do that. The military will always have a dominant advantage in this area.

I think it would be best to move beyond general discussion of specific topics and instead into discussion of specifically libertarian justifications for or against certain policy proposals. For example, instead of discussing the purely economic facets of firearm prohibition, someone could say that it conflicts with civil libertarian notions, and someone else could say that unrestricted firearm exchange can generate negative externalities that are authoritarian in nature, for example.

Redress said:

Thanks for your answers. Just one comment on the above quote: you cannot ever do that. The military will always have a dominant advantage in this area.

Click to expand...

I'm not typically a militant fellow but improvised explosives and other such nastys can definitely shake a professional soldier to his core.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I'm not typically a militant fellow but improvised explosives and other such nastys can definitely shake a professional soldier to his core.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but concentrated fire, and fire support is not something you can even approach the military on.

Redress said:

Thanks for your answers. Just one comment on the above quote: you cannot ever do that. The military will always have a dominant advantage in this area.

Click to expand...

The military has more raw force available, and more sophisticated means of deploying same, yes.

However, the issue is far more complex than that, and not nearly cut-and-dried.

The question of whether the military would support the government against the people, being one question...or how much of the military would be on which side. The PR issues involved in, say, bombing Kansas City with the Air Force would be a nightmare.

Fourth-generation warfare, guerilla tactics and assassination being another set of complexities.

The mere fact that tens of millions of citizens are armed, and may retailiate with lethal force if pushed too far, is in and of itself an instrument to make would-be tyrants hesitate.

It is too deep of an issue to merely brush away with a one-line answer.

Goshin said:

The military has more raw force available, and more sophisticated means of deploying same, yes.

However, the issue is far more complex than that, and not nearly cut-and-dried.

The question of whether the military would support the government against the people, being one question...or how much of the military would be on which side. The PR issues involved in, say, bombing Kansas City would be a nightmare.

Fourth-generation warfare, guerilla tactics and assassination being another set of complexities.

The mere fact that tens of millions of citizens are armed, and may retailiate with lethal force if pushed too far, is in and of itself an instrument to make would-be tyrants hesitate.

It is too deep of an issue to merely brush away with a one-line answer.

Click to expand...

I don't think any one in government gives possible armed insurrection any real thought or concern. It is simply not a realistic threat in any realistic scenario in my lifetime.

Redress said:

I don't think any one in government gives possible armed insurrection any real thought or concern. It is simply not a realistic threat in any realistic scenario in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't agree.

It (4GW armed insurrection) has already happened on a small scale.

Waco -> OKC

I practically guarantee you there are individuals in the government who do think about such things, and whether under certain circumstances, certain governmental actions might provoke hundreds of OKC's or other 4GW events.

(Understand that I am in no wise endorsing McVeigh's actions, simply pointing out that he said OKC was in retaliation for Waco.)

Goshin said:

:shrug: I don't agree.

It (4GW) has already happened on a small scale.

Waco -> OKC

I practically guarantee you there are individuals in the government who do think about such things, and whether under certain circumstances, certain governmental actions might provoke hundreds of OKC's or other 4GW events.

(Understand that I am in no wise endorsing McVeigh's actions, simply pointing out that he said OKC was in retaliation for Waco.)

Click to expand...

Define "4GW" please.

Now, this is where we are going way in different directions. Waco was a large scale resisting arrest situation to my mind, and OKC was a terrorist act. Neither was an insurrection to my way of thinking.

By the way, this thread is fascinating in the directions it goes, always seems like we are steering offtopic, but in different ways.

Redress said:

Define "4GW" please.

Now, this is where we are going way in different directions. Waco was a large scale resisting arrest situation to my mind, and OKC was a terrorist act. Neither was an insurrection to my way of thinking.

Click to expand...

4GW is "Fourth Generation Warfare". It is a collection of methodologies for resistance/insurrection against a militarily superior opponent. We are currently facing a crude version of it in Iraq, Afganistan, and against Al-Queda. It can include such things as assassination, guerilla warfare, and acts typically considered terrorism. The objective is to force a superior enemy to give up though wearing him down and weakening his will to fight.

From a lot of the opinions expressed on DP about Iraq and Afganistan, I'd say it is working against us fairly well. (insert ironic frowning smilie here).

OKC was an individual, or more likely (despite what we've been told) a small group, retaliating against what he/they percieved as a governmental atrocity. Imagine related actions on a much wider scale (hundreds or thousands of "cells"), and that is one possibility by which an oppressed populace might resist a tyranny that possessed greater military force.

Again, I am not endorsing or approving such tactics, just noting them as an example of how this issue is more complex than many people realize.

A view of armed insurrection as exclusively something like Bunker Hill or the other early incident (whose name escapes me just now), some vision of hundreds of citizens lining the street bearing rifles and daring the military to roll over them, is prosaic but would represent extremely poor tactics for asymmetrical warfare.


(and now it is time to listen to a little Norah Jones and go to bed. :mrgreen: )

Like others have said, it's a matter of degree for me. I generally support moving in the direction these positions outline, but not taking them to the full extreme that the folks at the LP would like to. I'll break it down by each topic ..

Laissez Faire capitalism

In general, yes, but I do recognize there are market failures and externalities the market fails to take into account. I favor regulation like safety standards, anti-trust laws, and some others that aren't coming to mind right now.

End drug prohibition

I'm 100% for the legalization of marijuana. I have yet to hear a rational reason why it is an illegal substance and tobbacco and alcohol are not. For harder drugs, I'm not entirely certain legalization is the best solution, but I am certain our current policy of "war" on drugs isn't working and serves as a colossal waste of tax dollars and strengthens the criminal cartels that control the drug trade.

Avoid interventionism in foreign policy

In foreign policy, I'm a realist. America should act in America's self interest. I do believe most of the time, our self interest is served through a non-interventionist policy, but certain extreme circumstances could arise to warrant interventionist actions. Those actions should be carefully considered in terms of both the short term and long term consequences.

End foreign aid

Yes. Usually it ends up in the pockets of dictators anyway. America should look after its own. I'm not opposed to humanitarian relief for victims of natural disasters, but that would be the only exception I think.

End gun bans

Yes. The right to bear arms is as essential as the right to free speech, if not more so. While its true I don't think we're anywhere near the point were a widespread civillian insurrection is likely or necessary, the possibility of one is an important check of government tyranny.

Deregulate healthcare

I'd favor some deregulation, but not all. In general, I think government regulation should be used to fix market failures or to account for hidden externality costs. Going beyond that, we often have unintended consequences that make the problem we were trying to fix even worse.

Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)

No. This goes to my realist outlook on foriegn policy. The U.S. economy is not equipped to take in an unlimited number of unskilled immigrant laborers. Furthermore, in this time and place, there is also a security issue. We have a right, as a soveriegn nation, to control our borders and know who is coming into our nation.

That said, I'm not opposed to a pathway to citizenship for current illegals (under certain conditions), if that was the necessary political compromise to put some real teeth into preventing future illegal immigration. I'm also a supporter of legal immigration and believe our immigration quotas should set based on our economic needs.

End welfare

I'm more about reforming welfare. I'm strongly opposed to able bodied individuals being long term dependents of welfare and other government programs. I think welfare for able bodied folks should be temporary and constructed with the goal of transforming recipients into prodoctive citizens with employable skills.

I'm not opposed to basic provisions for the truly disabled. I think history has shown that private charity is insufficient and providing a safety net for those who have no other options (not able bodied bums) provides increased stability in society.

Allow opting out of Social Security

Yes! Please, please, please let me get out of thsi horrrible system. I read a study years ago that my generation (Gen X) is more likely to believe in aliens than to believe we'll collect our share of social security. I don't believe in either, but aliens seem more probable to me.

I support just about everything up there, with two exceptions. I'm fine with foreign aid. I also don't think welfare should be eliminated, but severely scaled down. I'm on board for everything else.

EgoffTib said:

I support just about everything up there, with two exceptions. I'm fine with foreign aid. I also don't think welfare should be eliminated, but severely scaled down. I'm on board for everything else.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, and your new avatar scares me.

Redress said:

Thanks for the reply, and your new avatar scares me.

Click to expand...

To be fair, I've got a solid amount of Psilocybin in my system at this moment in time and it seemed highly appropriate. :mrgreen:

By the way, did I do ok at getting the capital "L" Libertarian parties platform covered with the basics? Is there other issues that capital "L" types consider more important, or how about little "l" types?

EgoffTib said:

To be fair, I've got a solid amount of Psilocybin in my system at this moment in time and it seemed highly appropriate. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

And I gave up drugs years ago. Shrooms made my vision grainy usually, and almost always made me stutter(which was odd, no one else I know had that problem).

Redress said:

By the way, did I do ok at getting the capital "L" Libertarian parties platform covered with the basics? Is there other issues that capital "L" types consider more important, or how about little "l" types?

Click to expand...

A lot of the Party member Libertarians believe in some sort of pacifism and support democracy as it is now.

Many of the little l's do not.

Harry Guerrilla said:

A lot of the Party member Libertarians believe in some sort of pacifism and support democracy as it is now.

Many of the little l's do not.

Click to expand...

Can you define "support democracy as it is now" for me. Do you mean that big "L" types support the current style of our government, while little"l" types oppose it? If that is so, how would you change our democracy?

Redress said:

And I gave up drugs years ago. Shrooms made my vision grainy usually, and almost always made me stutter(which was odd, no one else I know had that problem).

Click to expand...

I've had nothing but beneficial experiences, but I have known people who have had serious mental breakdowns. A lot of meditation helps me build up the mental fortitude to appropriately handle psychedelics, in my opinion.

My dot ended up directly in the center of the square, which means I have transcended the primate world of the political and am now becoming God-like, perhaps the next step in human evolution.

See, this is what happens when I do not drink.

I am off to get a beer and re-join the rest of you human slobs.

Redress said:

Can you define "support democracy as it is now" for me. Do you mean that big "L" types support the current style of our government, while little"l" types oppose it? If that is so, how would you change our democracy?

Click to expand...

In general, the party members support the system of who votes now.
Agreeing that being 18 should be the only qualification and there are others who support voting at the least competent age, like a teenager or prepubescent child.

Some little "l's" like myself do not support popular democracy and prefer limited democracy.
Of course in the old days if was the land owners who were allowed to vote in federal elections with states having different requirements on whether or not someone had to follow those same guidelines to vote in state elections.

I've thought of several things, restoring the land ownership requirement, IQ tests, academic achievement.
All of those can be easily manipulated to open access to the system.

I fall back on the same principles that the courts use to have an ethical jury.
You can't have any financial connection to the government (Welfare both corporate and social, contractor for government, SS recipient, government worker etc.)

I can only find it ethical and valid when the person voting doesn't get some sort of "extra" benefit for doing so.
I'd also restrict the promising of extra benefits if X candidate is voted in.
That is essentially a bribe, although I haven't fully thought out that part yet.