Libertarians and the Constitution Party.. Educate me

[Drysdale]

Myth. Not all the founding Fathers were Christian. Some were Deists, some Unitarian.

I've read the bible from front to back, took 2.5 years, from Genesis through Revelation.

The bible condones slavery, treats women as property. In reality there is very little freedom in the bible outside of obeying God, which in the bible, especially in the O.T., comes down to obeying the authorities who are in power, for they are chosen by God.

The freedoms in the Constitution are not derived from the bible.

The Treaty of Tripoli, authored by the US in 1796:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed under duress in order to curtail the ravages of Muslim Pirates that we weren't strong enough to fight off.

 

[Flyboy]

Ok, explain to me why God doesn't let people buy real beer in Oklahoma?

He helps those who help themselves.

(Now in the fermenter: Scotch ale.)

 

[Drysdale]

Ok, explain to me why God doesn't let people buy real beer in Oklahoma?

They can.... but only in liquor stores...

 

[IndianaDean]

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed under duress in order to curtail the ravages of Muslim Pirates that we weren't strong enough to fight off.

So, we were lying in the treaty? Lying isn't very Christian.

 

[benEzra]

Funny, the so-called libertarians are constantly quoting the Founding Fathers, a group notorious for their strong religious preferences in governance. I guess religion then was OK, but today is somehow unpalatable.

Religion is fine. Forcing others to conform to your religious beliefs at gunpiont is not fine.

The Founders talked a lot about Christianity; many were indeed Christians, and most of those who weren't still respected it (Jefferson and Franklin). But they did NOT go around trying to outlaw everything they considered a vice. They didn't enact alcohol Prohibition under the George Washington administration; they didn't outlaw coarse language; they didn't outlaw gambling; etc. etc.

That's the difference between the Founders and some elements of the modern religious right. The Founders believed live and let live, and lead by example; some today seem to believe that "Do as I say, or else" is a better pattern. In practice, it doesn't usually work out that well.

I am a Christian, but I do not believe that the purpose of a representative government is to make every citizen conform to the religious beliefs of the majority.

(Note--I personally believe the ACLU goes way to far in the other direction on this issue; they are correct about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but they tend to ignore the "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part, in my observation. The government should be religion-neutral, not religion-hostile, IMHO.)

§21-907. Sunday to be observed.
The first day of the week being by very general consent set apart for rest and religious uses, the law forbids to be done on that day certain acts deemed useless and serious interruptions of the repose and religious liberty of the community. Any violation of this prohibition is Sabbath-breaking.
R.L.1910, § 2404.
§21-908. Sabbath-breaking defined.
The following are the acts forbidden to be done on the first day of the week, the doing of any of which is Sabbath-breaking:
1. Servile labor, except works of necessity or charity.
2. Trades, manufactures, and mechanical employment.
3. All horse racing or gaming except as authorized by the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Horse Racing Act.
4. All manner of public selling, or offering or exposing for sale publicly, of any commodities, except that meats, bread, fish, and all other foods may be sold at any time, and except that food and drink may be sold to be eaten and drank upon the premises where sold, and drugs, medicines, milk, ice, and surgical appliances and burial appliances and all other necessities may be sold at any time of the day.
R.L. 1910, § 2405. Amended by Laws 1913, c. 204, p. 456, § 1; Laws 1949, p. 204, § 1; Laws 1983, c. 11, § 36, emerg. eff. March 22, 1983; Laws 1996, c. 191, § 1, emerg. eff. May 16, 1996.

Irony of ironies.

The English word "Sabbath" comes from the Hebrew word shabat, meaning seventh. As in, "Remember the seventh day, to keep it holy," the command given to the Hebrews.

In Christian theology, Sunday is not the "Sabbath." It's a day of commemoration and remembrance, but the Pauline epistles make it abundantly clear that Christians are not required to keep the Sabbath, e.g. they are allowed to work on Saturday and such. "One indeed esteems a day above another day; and another esteems every day alike. Let each one be fully assured in his own mind..." etc. (Rom. 14:5 and following).

That's all I'll say on the topic, as this isn't a religion forum, and I don't want this thread to turn into a religious debate. Suffice it to say that the Founders believed in religious tolerance, not forcing conformity to the dictates of religious leaders.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

As far as "apology" goes, if you are trying to be the PC police, you are addressing the wrong guy.

No problem, Real Gun. I didn't mean to sound preachy. You seem to now admit that your statement that the Constitution Party is racist was just your opinion, and not based on anything in reality. As long as you are saying that it is your opinion and not founded on facts, then we have no disagreement really.

The information in your last post about welfare did not have anything to do with race, so I am not sure what your point was. It did make me wonder about something. You seem to think that if someone is against welfare that they are somewhat racist. At least that is the charge you seem to be making about the Constitution Party. But is that thought not racist itself? Does it not presume that black people are incapable of living without welfare? Does it presume that black people are unable to fend for themselves?

Since the Republicans have always been more against welfare than the Democrats, does that mean the Republicans are racist also?

 

[IndianaDean]

Concerning welfare, I've always been led to believe that welfare originally was started as a racist way of trying to keep the minority populations in their "place" by giving them handouts.
I know gun control's beginnings and continuings are racist.
The first gun control laws in the US were enacted after the War Between the States to keep blacks from acquiring guns.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Concerning welfare, I've always been led to believe that welfare originally was started as a racist way of trying to keep the minority populations in their "place" by giving them handouts.

I am not sure why you would have been led to believe that. Welfare was started by FDR and massively expanded under the Great Society of LBJ. Niether of these men were known for keeping minorities in their "place".

If you look at the segregationist politicians in the south following WWII, you will see that none were fans of welfare.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Guys, I've been reading, and I want to thank everyone for their opinions, thoughts, and discussion here. I've also been reading the websites for both parties, and the link for America's Party as well. I would mostly say I agree with the Libertarian side of things just a tad bit more, although I like the views of America's Party as well. Also, I didn't see much of anything that flashed racist in my head, but I did see some things that flashed red regarding the religious language of the Constitution Party.

To add, I am a young (25), black, male voter, who really can't see who is worse when it comes to Democrats or Republicans. Regarding my demographic I feel one party ignores us, and one takes it for granted that we tend to vote for them in elections. As an individual I think they're all a bunch of liars. As an American, I feel that almost none of our politicians listen to what most of us in the middle really want from our elected officials. Hence, my interest in the 3rd party movement.

One thing I want to comment on is the welfare issue. I live in Columbus, Ohio - which is a pretty big city. Lots of less than desireable areas to live in. I know lots of people who don't make very much money. I know quite a few who are probably considered below the poverty line. No one in my family is rich, but I know hardly anyone in the inner city who is actually on welfare. Doesn't mean some people I know aren't dirt poor, or live in bad areas, but they're not on government assistance of any kind.

This is of course, contrary to what we see and hear in the media, but one of the first things I learned at my short stay in college (and something I've always believed) is that the things we hear regarding blacks and welfare are categorically not true. I would have to say personal experiences tend to support that. There are always going to be housing projects, etc., and inner city welfare neighborhoods are obviously predominantly minority. But the statistics I was given say that only around 40% (+ or -) of people on welfare nationwide are minorities, the other 60% or so tend to be young, single white moms, mostly who live in rural areas.

I don't know where I stand on the welfare issue. Luckily, I have never needed any type of public assistance, and I know it is a very widely abused system. The thing is, in my honest view, some people truly need some kind of public assistance. Also, I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that welfare is only available to single parents/grandparents. I think some of these folks really need help. The thing is, how do you determine who honestly needs it, and how do we help people to become independant of it?

I really don't know where I stand on this whole issue, as I honestly feel it's very complicated. I also agree that welfare, like gun control, was a very racist institution in it's beginnings that evolved into a national problem. I also agree, like gun control in any form, that it needs to come to an end. The question then becomes I guess, what do we do for our less fortunate citizens instead? Maybe a government sponsored educational/adult skill program that one can recieve aid while attaining some sort of certification?

Thanks again to everyone from their posts. There are some very good thoughts here from all sides. I'll be sure to keep reading and checking back.

 

[xd9fan]

The book I mentioned early in the thread does tackle your concerns...and I think he does have good workable answers that move away from the socialistic behavoir americans have now.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

I really don't know where I stand on this whole issue, as I honestly feel it's very complicated. I also agree that welfare, like gun control, was a very racist institution in it's beginnings that evolved into a national problem. I also agree, like gun control in any form, that it needs to come to an end. The question then becomes I guess, what do we do for our less fortunate citizens instead? Maybe a government sponsored educational/adult skill program that one can recieve aid while attaining some sort of certification?

I think you're right that these can be complicated issues. A typical libertarian / free market approach to welfare and similar issues is that private charities do a much better job of taking care of the people who need the most help. The short version: governments simply are not good at helping the needy, and are wasteful in their attempts. A longer explanation follows...

Government organizations in general cannot make very efficient use of money, for several reasons: government employees are paid; government agencies often have multiple layers of bureaucracy -- all of which take a slice of the incoming money before it can get to the people who need it; the cost of compliance with the government's own regulations (ADA, EEO, etc.) add significant overhead, and so on. The total amount of (tax) money that goes to help recipients through the government may end up being a very small fraction of the original amount.

On the other hand, private charitable organizations are often able to administer close to 100% of donations to those who need it, using an efficient staff of volunteers. Volunteers by definition tend to care greatly about the people they're helping. A government worker? I'm not saying that they don't care, but it's a job -- not necessarily a passion. Another difference is that private charitable aid tends to be given through local venues (such as churches), by people in the same communities as the recipients of charity. The government approach to distributing aid seems very cold and soulless by comparison (ever been in a state welfare office?).

Many non-socialists view government-administered welfare as "charity" at gunpoint. That is, taxes used to fund welfare programs are collected by force, at gunpoint if necessary. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. The point is that forcing people to pay for something they don't want -- particularly when much better alternatives are availalable -- isn't exactly charity. It's simply brute force, and theft. Really this argument doesn't apply strictly to welfare, but almost any ill-conceived tax (there's a whole lot we can debate on the subject of taxes).

Libertarians and other free-market minded people also believe that, free from the burden of endless government regulations and taxes, people would be far wealthier in general. This has the double benefit of reducing the number of people who need aid, and putting a lot more resources into the hands of the private citizens who can most effectively help those who need it.

 

[Firethorn]

Libertarians and other free-market minded people also believe that, free from the burden of endless government regulations and taxes, people would be far wealthier in general. This has the double benefit of reducing the number of people who need aid, and putting a lot more resources into the hands of the private citizens who can most effectively help those who need it.

+1 for the entire post.

I remember reading somewhere that when one state put a duration limitation on welfare benefits, about half moved out and the rest found jobs.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The sad thing is people don't realize that most of the Constitution's basic freedoms were derived from the Bible.

I must say that I disagree with that statement. The world view espoused by the bible, in relation to law and government, is that sovereignty flows downwards, i.e., first from God to his chosen church, and then (or simultaneously) to his chosen king, and then down along two parallel lines from the church heads down to the individual believer, and from the King down to the individual slave/surf/peasent. Contrarily, the American world view is one where sovereignty is granted to every individual directly from their creator, and then is loaned in part to their representatives at the State level, and the States then loan a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. Totally reversed.

 

[Wayniac]

Wow, this thread does have some polarizing opinions and I can see that most angles have been covered in some way.

I am a Christian and I am a Libertarian (card carrying). I am a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ (completely). I am a Libertarian because I believe in individual freedom and liberty (completely).

Some Christians have chastised me because of my political affiliation. They ask how I can support a party that supports gay rights, the decriminalization of drugs etc. I explain that Libertarians don’t "support" any particular rights groups, only individuals rights to liberty, gays have the right to be gay I have the right to be Christian. I also explain that my spiritual life has nothing to do with my political affiliations. I believe they are not mutually exclusive.

By supporting the Libertarian party, I am supporting MY rights as an individual, i am simply saying that I have the right to liberty and so does EVERYONE else. At the center of the Libertarian philosophy is LIBERTY. Thru this philosophy, I secure my rights to go to the church of my choice, carry a handgun for protection, drink a glass of wine at dinner with my wife, smoke a cigar in my own home, and wear a seatbelt when I choose or not choose. By that same token, someone else may want to have a gay relationship, smoke a joint, snort some coke, watch a porn film, stick a corn cob up their a$$, I don’t really care, its their life to do as they wish and they should have that freedom just like I do.

Surrounding this is a major point, for me anyway, and that is YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY! Yes, this country was founded on biblical principals and that had made this country great IMHO, but it is not the governments place to tell me, or anyone else, how to live my life, how to eat, drink, walk, talk or anything else as long as it does not interfere with another persons Liberty and Rights.

BTW that is the only absolute line that should be drawn. My liberty and freedom is superseded ONLY where it would infringe on another persons life. EG: Violent crime, theft, privacy invasion etc.

OK, im done.

 

[pauli]

wayniac++

 

[rock jock]

They didn't enact alcohol Prohibition under the George Washington administration; they didn't outlaw coarse language; they didn't outlaw gambling; etc. etc.

How you write this with a straight face is beyond me. Early America was rife with laws outlawing every type of vice you can imagine, and many you can't, including gambling, coarse language, and sexual sins. They may not have come from the federal govt., but they certainly did at the state and local level, with a great deal of fervor.

This is precisely why the libertarian movement is doomed, because it was the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the desire of people today, to govern their own community in the fashion they see fit. I would never deign to ask a community of libertarians to outlaw anything. They would relish the opportunity to live (if that's what you call it) in a community free of any type of constraint whatsoever on the most extreme and outlandish behavior imaginable. I'm sure it would warm the cockles of their hearts to see five-year olds selling crack to their friends on the corner right next to a group engaged in an orgy on a public square in the middle of the day. I'm sure they would say to themselves "isn't it wonderful we can do whatever we want whenever we want whereever we want as long as we don't physically harm anyone." Now, I believe, as do my friends and family, that that kind of environment, where there exist no limits, is exactly what fosters a total abandonment of the ethical and moral beliefs that allow a society to function in a civilized manner, and that a clear eventuality of such an environment is the kind of violence and destruction that libertarians supposedly repudiate.

But hey, that's just my opinion (and that of the vast majority of Americans). What rankles me is that that same group of libertarians would then turn around and try to dictate to me what kind of laws that my neighbors and I can pass in our own community. We don't want our community polluted with behavior we find harmful to society, but libertarians would jump in my face and tell me "you MUST allow prostitution," "you MUST allow legalization of every drug,"you MUST accept every type of perverted behavior and if you don't, you're a tyrant." Then libertarians try to tell me that I'm forcing my beliefs on THEM????

I've got news for you. Everybody wants their belief system to rule. The Founding Fathers understood this, thus explaining why there were representatives from colonies with very different standards, and yet no one set of standards found its way into the BOR; rather a very basic set of foundational freedoms was enshrined in the Constitution. Why libertarians can't abide by the Constitutional model is beyond me. My guess is that their own philisophical construct is so much part of their being that it is in fact their religion, and therefore they abide by it with religious conviction. This prevents them considering any system that accomodates other beliefs, even one embodied by the Constitution. Many libertarians have openly admitted as much on THR - that the Constitution only matters to them insofar as it supports their beliefs and that they will continue to pursue a perfect libertarian society even it conflicts with the Constitution. They then condemn the Religious Right for supposedly trying to violate the spirit of the First Amendment. What a joke.

 

[Wayniac]

They would relish the opportunity to live (if that's what you call it) in a community free of any type of constraint whatsoever on the most extreme and outlandish behavior imaginable. I'm sure it would warm the cockles of their hearts to see five-year olds selling crack to their friends on the corner right next to a group engaged in an orgy on a public square in the middle of the day.
What a joke.

Nice

This is the same kind of uneducated comment that uber-liberals make when the say that all gun supporters are "gun totin' rednecks that want to shoot everything that moves".

Yes, a joke indeed.

 

[rock jock]

This is the same kind of uneducated comment that uber-liberals make when the say that all gun supporters are "gun totin' rednecks that want to shoot everything that moves".

First, I have seen comments from several hard-core libertarians on TFL and THR that explicitly support this type of behavior. Second, instead of throwing out a polemic, why don't you substantively argue the point? The libertarnian philosophy is based on the idea that the "State" may not prohibit any behavior that does cause direct harm to another. So, the scenario I present is perfectly allowable in an ideal libertarian society.

 

[Firethorn]

How you write this with a straight face is beyond me. Early America was rife with laws outlawing every type of vice you can imagine, and many you can't, including gambling, coarse language, and sexual sins. They may not have come from the federal govt., but they certainly did at the state and local level, with a great deal of fervor.

True, very much true. But even back then you could generally leave for greener pastures. Most idiocy was at the town/city level. Some was at the state, but not much.

As a libertarian, I feel that the federal government needs to be the most restrained, with townships, individual counties, the least.

Now pushing down the freedoms in the constitution is good, but I feel that cities do have a right to do zoning and such. I can move at that level, if it becomes that bad.

Of course, this makes me a small 'l' libertarian.

 

[RealGun]

No problem, Real Gun. I didn't mean to sound preachy. You seem to now admit that your statement that the Constitution Party is racist was just your opinion, and not based on anything in reality. As long as you are saying that it is your opinion and not founded on facts, then we have no disagreement really.

The information in your last post about welfare did not have anything to do with race, so I am not sure what your point was. It did make me wonder about something. You seem to think that if someone is against welfare that they are somewhat racist. At least that is the charge you seem to be making about the Constitution Party. But is that thought not racist itself? Does it not presume that black people are incapable of living without welfare? Does it presume that black people are unable to fend for themselves?

Since the Republicans have always been more against welfare than the Democrats, does that mean the Republicans are racist also?

Your readings of my intentions are "not based on anything in reality", so I don't need to respond. Last I heard, opinions were not unfounded by definition. Show me some evidence that more than a few token blacks have the slightest interest in the CP, and I might reconsider.

The CP is little more than unbridled right wing Republicans, dominated by religious zealots. They couldn't be farther removed from the political concerns of the black community. The blacks in Congress are 100% Democrat.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

True, very much true. But even back then you could generally leave for greener pastures. Most idiocy was at the town/city level. Some was at the state, but not much.

As a libertarian, I feel that the federal government needs to be the most restrained, with townships, individual counties, the least.

Now pushing down the freedoms in the constitution is good, but I feel that cities do have a right to do zoning and such. I can move at that level, if it becomes that bad.

Of course, this makes me a small 'l' libertarian.

+1 That makes you a libertarian/conservative, like myself. That is to say, you believe in democracy at the local level, with increasing limits on government at higher levels, i.e., you believe in federalism as envisioned by the Founders. The advantage to this is that everybody gets a chance to live in a community with laws that suit them best, i.e., the largest possible number of people will be happy with government as it effects them directly. Now, if you lean libertarian, that's great. You can move to a town with lots of libertarians, and vote for all kinds of laws that promote libertarianism. Everyone is happy. That's the genius of federalism.

 

[Wayniac]

instead of throwing out a polemic, why don't you substantively argue the point?

If you had made a reasonable point, I’d argue it. You are taking a philosophy and pushing it to an unreasonable extreme. No point made.

But, OK, since you don’t think I made my point in my previous post (even though i did) I'll continue.
First off, there is no political philosophy that is free of its extremist who take a good idea to a point far beyond its original intent. I cannot help that in the Libertarian party anymore than Dems and Reps can in their parties. So I can’t speak to anyone else you have had dealings with.

I continue...

Personal responsibility is discouraged, by the current system of government, denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility.

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. I/We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. My support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. I believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Libertarian policies promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions. Too many laws presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person's life.

Which bring us to...

The libertarian philosophy is based on the idea that the "State" may not prohibit any behavior that does cause direct harm to another. So, the scenario I present is perfectly allowable in an ideal libertarian society.

Wrong! A child selling crack on the streets is not a victimless crime. Alcohol and Tobacco (which BTW are two of the most harmful and addictive drugs on the planet) are perfectly legal, but "5 yo kids" aren’t selling it in the streets. That is a ridiculous assumption. In fact, with the current so called "WAR" on drugs you much more likely, and in fact do, see kids selling drugs in the streets everyday. The "WAR" is enabling that behavior.

And another thing. The whole point of Libertarianism is to allow the "State", that is, communities, cities, counties, states. To have more say over their own laws. So big gov. cant come in and say "do it my way", you can do it yours.

 

[RealGun]

+1 That makes you a libertarian/conservative, like myself. That is to say, you believe in democracy at the local level, with increasing limits on government at higher levels, i.e., you believe in federalism as envisioned by the Founders. The advantage to this is that everybody gets a chance to live in a community with laws that suit them best, i.e., the largest possible number of people will be happy with government as it effects them directly. Now, if you lean libertarian, that's great. You can move to a town with lots of libertarians, and vote for all kinds of laws that promote libertarianism. Everyone is happy. That's the genius of federalism.

I believe that the notion of State sovereignty was only necessary to gain agreement for forming the United States. Independence of States has been progressively counterproductive. They have also been too corrupt and abusive to be left to their own judgments affecting the quality of ones citizenship in the US.

At this point, the US is indivisible, and all territories are equally owned by all citizens of the US, thanks to tax distribution. It is more important at this stage for ones rights and legal status to remain intact as he or she crosses State lines. I would agree that the Constitution should have been updated to reflect all that, but we don't agree that the 14th Amendment addressed exactly these questions. I believe it means what it says. It is far from narrow in its scope. It is clearly intended to prevent States from abusing the rights of US citizenship.

I believe that federal powers should be kept in check, exercised only where truly justified, but constrained merely on the basis of State sovereignty means nothing to me. Longing for the good old days, just cuz, is not as noble as you make it sound. I can see that a free interpretation of the 14th Amendment would serve as your nemesis, but I think that is exactly its purpose, acknowledging the lessons learned from the Civil War, a failure of State sovereignty.

The part of State sovereignty that is of particular concern to gun owners is how there is no uniformity in treatment of gun ownership. When my rights as a US citizen are abused by a State, I look to the federal government as an avenue of appeal, the higher power. On this issue and many others, I would slap States down hard on being inconsistent with the country as a whole, the standard defined by the federal government. I am not looking to give States license to have 50 different definitions of what it means to be a US citizen.

I wouldn't use State appropriations as blackmail to get States to comply with federal mandates. I would make any Constitutional changes necessary to make States obliged to act like parts of a whole, bound by their representation in Congress and conceding to the will of the majority of that body. If a State wants to recall their representatives, dissatisfied with the outcomes, I think they should do that. They can't drop out though. They can only send someone else.

There really is no such thing as State sovereignty. There are only administrative boundaries among permanent regions of the United States. This might not have been very evident or even true in the early years of this country, but it certainly is the case today. I think it would be a good idea for the Constitution to clearly reflect how the country operates in its best interest, but until Congress can handle the debate and come to agreement on constitutional changes, the country will be ruled by the Supreme Court, who will rule in favor of the desired result. That is unless the Court can be reconstituted to defer to Congress when its guidance in the law is not clear. When both Congress and the Supreme Court effectively ignore the Constitution, we have a fundamental problem.

I can't support your interest in the CP, because the Constitution they are referring to is their own version, including an establishment of religion. They are no more in favor of the constitution than any other party. Speaking openly about religious tyranny is pretty disturbing if you ask me.

 

[GunnySkox]

I can't find a party that makes complete sense to me.

The Dees and the aRes are primarily concerned with the immediate goings on, the political climate right-now as opposed to what is right and proper. They're focussed on fighting each other and their constituencies instead of fighting for what's right and against what's wrong.

The Constitution Party almost gets it, but then take a pretty sharp swerve toward Jesus that I don't appreciate (I'm a Theoretically Religious person, but I've grown sick of most organized religions because of their collective political stances on various issues).

The Libertarians, just like Communists and Socialists and et-cetera so-forth-and-so-on, (at least the ones I've talked to*) have entirely too much faith in Human Nature and/or its ability to change. Libertarianism is more right than the other ideologies I mentioned, they're still a little screwy, and reading some of the stuff on the Libertarian Party's platform gimme the jibblies.

*- The Libertarians of whom I speak are generally of the "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of capitalism!" kind, which is primarily the thing that gives me the jibblies.

~GnSx

 

[rock jock]

And another thing. The whole point of Libertarianism is to allow the "State", that is, communities, cities, counties, states. To have more say over their own laws. So big gov. cant come in and say "do it my way", you can do it yours.

I have studied libertarianism to some degree and perused several libertarian websites. I have also read thousands of posts by THR libertarians. I have never seen anything that would indicate there is any distinguishing between the federal or local/state govts when it comes to the libertarian ideal.

Wrong! A child selling crack on the streets is not a victimless crime.

How does a "victim" have anything to do with the issue? Libertarians are uniformly against drug laws of every kind, PERIOD! I have never seen any exceptions for age.