Libertarian beliefs

[Buccaneer]

With all of this talk about eroding civil liberties, govt ever-expanding intrusions into our lives and pocketbooks, and the growing power of the federal govt (military, regulatory, etc.), allow me to present some of the Libertarian beliefs and solutions.

Caveat: I am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party. Like with any political platform, I don't agree with everything. However, I believe those that are looking for a Democrat or a Republican to solve our budgetary, military, economical and civil liberty "crises", are looking at the source of the problems; therefore, the real solutions cannot come from them.

FWIW (copies and pasted from another forum, which copied and pasted from somewhere else, etc.)

[Buccaneer]

Political Corruption

Americans of all backgrounds are sick and tired of the growing problem of political corruption and abuse. Every day more and more examples of the abuse of power by elected and appointed officials hit the newsstands. These problems are epidemic in both the Democratic and the Republican parties.

The House Bank -- set up with bipartisan support -- was supposed to be a convenient way for busy congressmen to cash their paychecks. What it turned out to be was a scam for many congressmen -- a way to write bad checks often totalling more than a congressman's pay. If you or I did this at our local bank, we would be subject to criminal prosecution and fines in most states. Why should congressmen allow themselves to do something wrong? Should we be surprised that a group of people who cannot balance their own checkbooks cannot balance our national budget?

Both parties in Congress have voted to give themselves dozens of special privileges -- everything from free airport parking to health clubs to cheap haircuts to passing laws that do not apply to them. How different is this from the way that kings, queens, and dictators make demands of their citizens while they do what they please?

Both the Democrats and the Republicans vote to use our tax dollars to pay for their election campaigns and their conventions. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are used for this every four years. They use our money for their purposes so that they don't have to use their own. Isn't it time that members of Congress pay their own bills instead of making us pay them?

Then, to make it harder to challenge their power, both parties have cooperated in enacting laws in almost every state that make it very difficult and extremely expensive for any other candidate to get on the ballot. Even billionaire Ross Perot has commented that the law in most states makes it difficult to get on the election ballot. If the business of Congress were anything other than politics, people would be calling for Congress and its members to be subject to anti-trust laws to prevent their monopoly from being abused ever again. Congress has done a good job to make sure that the laws they write to rule over others don't apply to Congress or its members!

And to add insult to injury, Congress has had no problem finding the time or spending the money to give themselves a big, fat raise. Wouldn't you love it if you only had to vote "yes" to get a huge raise whenever you wanted one! If nothing else, doesn't this make it clear that members of Congress see themselves as a special, privileged class?

Libertarians believe that elected officials should not hide behind special privileges that exempt them from the rules they impose on the people who elect them. Libertarians believe that elected officials do not deserve and should not have any rights or privileges that are different from those of any other citizen. We support:


Elimination of special rights and privileges for elected or appointed government officials.


Revision of any law or regulation that exempts the government or its officials from compliance.


Ending government funding of any political party or candidate.


Revision of state and federal laws to enable all candidates for elective office to be included on election ballots.

[Buccaneer]

Highlights and Summary ofThe Libertarian Party's Solution to America's Crime Problem.

An approach to criminal justice and crime control that is smart, compassionate and tough. An approach that will make our streets safe again.

America suffers from an epidemic of violence and crime, victimizing one family out of four every year. There is a murder every half hour, a rape every five minutes, and a theft every four seconds.

Despite decades of tough talk, the anti-crime policies of the Republicans and Democrats have clearly failed. The Libertarian Party believes a fresh approach is needed. That's why we're offering this five-point plan for making America's streets safe again:

Step 1. Protect Victims' Rights
Protecting the rights and interests of victims should be the basis of our criminal justice system. Victims should have the right to be present, consulted and heard throughout the prosecution of their case.

In addition, Libertarians would do more than just punish criminals. We would also make them pay restitution to their victims for the damage they've caused, including property loss, medical costs, pain, and suffering. If you are the victim of a crime, the criminal should fully compensate you for your loss.

Step 2. End Prohibition
Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.

Step 3. Get Tough on Real Crime
The Libertarian Party is the party of personal responsibility. We believe that anyone who harms another person should be held responsible for that action. By contrast, the Democrats and Republicans have created a system where criminals can get away with almost anything.

For instance: sentences seldom mean what they say. Fewer than one out of every four violent felons serves more than four years. Libertarians would dramatically reduce the number of these early releases by eliminating their root cause - prison over-crowding.

Since nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of this over-crowding. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts. Early release of violent criminals puts you and your family at risk. It must stop.

Step 4. Protect the Right to Self-Defense
We believe that the private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. Evidence: law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.

In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate). Libertarians would repeal waiting periods, concealed carry laws, and other restrictions that make it difficult for victims to defend themselves, and end the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.

Step 5. Address the Root Causes of Crime
Any society that lets kids grow up dependent on government welfare, attending government schools that fail to teach, and entering an economy where government policy has crushed opportunity, will be a society that breeds criminals. No permanent solution to crime will be found until we address these root causes of crime.

The Libertarian Party would increase employment opportunities by slashing taxes and government red tape. We would also end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness. Most important of all, we would promote low-cost private alternatives to the failed government school system.

Conclusion
The Libertarian Party's anti-crime plan would do what the Democrats and Republicans have not done:

Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.
Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.
Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.
Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.
Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.

[Buccaneer]

Unemployment

Millions of Americans who are willing and able to work are unemployed. Republicans and Democrats argue over band-aids like extending unemployment benefits and creating make-work government jobs. Meanwhile, they ignore the major cause of unemployment: their own policies. When government officials inflate the supply of money, when they give special privileges to banks, and when they try to plan the economy, they cause cycles of boom and bust -- cycles that misdirect investors, destroy healthy companies, and put workers out of work.

Some politicians propose that the government should guarantee a job to every American. Other politicians believe a national industrial policy will put people to work. The Soviet Union tried these policies for decades. The result was national bankruptcy and widespread poverty. Why should we make the same mistakes that the Soviets made?

The only cure for unemployment is a real job. The only effective way to create real jobs is to have a strong economy.

The Democrats and Republicans have destroyed jobs by:


taking money consumers and businesses would otherwise use to purchase goods and services,


taking money individuals and companies would otherwise use for investment,


subsidizing foreign governments, foreign businesses, and foreign citizens,


financing their massive budget deficit with borrowed money that otherwise could be used for business expansion and job creation,


smothering workers, business people, and investors with endless regulations and bloated bureaucracy, and


restricting commerce and trade.

Each year, our government takes over $200 billion in taxes from American consumers and businesses to subsidize foreign governments, foreign companies, and foreign citizens. The U.S. provides foreign countries free defense, direct military aid, direct economic aid, guaranteed loans, and other subsidies too numerous to list. Our government is sending your hard earned dollars to many of our fiercest competitors. This puts businesses here at a competitive disadvantage.

The U.S. corporate income tax discourages the flow of capital into America to open and expand businesses and create new jobs. Companies that pay lower taxes can produce goods and services at a lower cost and be more competitive in world markets. Companies that pay higher taxes have to pass those extra costs on to someone -- usually their customers. This raises prices for American consumers and helps price American goods out of foreign markets. The result is lost jobs at home.

More jobs are lost because of useless regulations and bureaucratic mandates. Large companies must devote resources to comply with each new regulation instead of becoming more competitive, expanding, and creating new jobs. Small businesses, which generate the vast majority of new jobs, frequently cannot afford to comply. They go out of business and unemployment rises.

The free flow of goods and services is a major source of employment in a market economy. Anything which restricts trade, either within a country or between countries, contributes to unemployment. Democrats and Republicans may talk about eliminating subsidies, trade barriers, and tariffs, but they haven't done it. The current U.S. policy of subsidizing agriculture, limiting imports, and erecting countless other barriers to trade is the exact opposite of the free trade position that our government claims to support.

To enable Americans to find jobs, we must do everything in our power to give workers, and the companies they work for, the ability to compete in world markets. The Libertarian Party supports five major initiatives to achieve this goal:


Phase out all direct and indirect subsidies to foreign nations, foreign companies, and foreign citizens.


Eliminate the double taxation of corporate profits.


Eliminate regulations and mandates that make companies less competitive and cost jobs.


Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs.


End government economic meddling that results in depressions and recessions that destroy jobs.

[Noop]

If we elected Libertarians they would be just like anyone in the position of power. The morals people say they have go out the window when you have power.

[Buccaneer]

The Pollution Solution:

Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants?

If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage!

In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.

In 1984, a Utah court ruled that the U.S. military was negligent in its nuclear testing, causing serious health problems (e.g. death) for the people exposed to radioactive fallout. The Court of Appeals dismissed the claims of the victims, because government employees have sovereign immunity.

Hooker Chemical begged the Niagara Falls School Board not to excavate the land where Hooker had safely stored toxic chemical waste. The school board ignored these warnings and taxpayers had to foot a $30 million relocation bill when health problems arose. The EPA filed suit, not against the reckless school board, but against Hooker Chemical! Government officials have sovereign immunity.

Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity.

By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.

For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.

Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.

Indeed, ownership of wildlife can literally save endangered species from extinction. Between 1979 and 1989, Kenya banned elephant hunting, yet the number of these noble beasts dropped from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe during the same time period, however, elephants could be legally owned and sold. The number of elephants increased from 30,000 to 43,000 as their owners became fiercely protective of their "property." Poachers didn't have a chance!

Similarly, commercialization of the buffalo saved it from extinction. We never worry about cattle becoming extinct, because their status as valuable "property" encourages their propagation. The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.

Environmentalists were once wary of private ownership, but now recognize that establishing the property rights of native people, for example, has become an effective strategy to save the rain forests. Do you remember the movie, Medicine Man, where scientist Sean Connery discovers a miracle drug in the rain forest ecology? Unfortunately, the life-saving compound is literally bulldozed under when the government turns the rain forest over to corporate interests. The natives that scientist Connery lives with are driven from their forest home. Their homesteading rights are simply ignored by their own government!

Our own Native Americans were driven from their rightful lands as well. Similarly, our national forests are turned over to logging companies, just as the rain forests are. By 1985, the U.S. Forest Service had built 350,000 miles of logging roads with our tax dollars -- outstripping our interstate highway system by a factor of eight! In the meantime, hiking trails declined by 30%. Clearly, our government serves special interest groups instead of protecting our environmental heritage.

Even our national parks are not immune from abuse. Yellowstone's Park Service once encouraged employees to trap predators (e.g., wolves, fox, etc.) so that the hoofed mammals favored by visitors would flourish. Not surprisingly, the ecological balance was upset. The larger elk drove out the deer and sheep, trampled the riverbanks, and destroyed beaver habitat. Without the beavers, the water fowl, mink, otter, and trout were threatened. Without the trout or the shrubs and berries that once lined the riverbanks, grizzlies began to endanger park visitors in their search for food. As a result, park officials had to remove the bears and have started bringing back the wolves.

Wouldn't we be better served if naturalist organizations, such as the Audubon Society or Nature Conservancy, took over the management of our precious parks? The Audubon Society's Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary partially supports itself with natural gas wells operated in an ecologically sound manner. In addition to preserving the sensitive habitat, the Society shows how technology and ecology can co-exist peacefully and profitably.

The environment would benefit immensely from the elimination of sovereign immunity coupled with the privatization of "land and beast." The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative.

[Tekneek]

If we elected Libertarians they would be just like anyone in the position of power. The morals people say they have go out the window when you have power.

It is easy to say this when you are accustomed to Republicans and Democrats doing it. It's a lot more difficult to prove when you haven't actually seen it happen. I urge you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

[Buccaneer]

What Happened to Your Family Budget?

Do you remember when the standard of living in America was the best in the world?

Today it is doubtful if our children will be better off than we are. Today, buying a decent home is no more than a dream for many hard-working American families.

Something has caused your family's budget to be cut. Something is going to destroy your family's future unless you act to stop it.

That something is the Federal government and its policy of taxation and inflation. Let's take a look at a median income family of four in the 1950s. At that time, the Federal income tax amounted to only 2% of the family budget. Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world.

By contrast, in the 1990s, the Federal income tax takes 25% of income for the same family of four. Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take about 50% of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes.

It now requires two paychecks to keep many families from going bankrupt. Typically, a working mother brings home 32% of a family's income.

So, whether she chooses to work -- or must work to make ends meet -- taxes have stolen her contribution to the family budget. In other words, one spouse now works all year just to pay taxes.

Ask yourself: Is the government spending that half of your income wisely?

You Work Harder
During those same years, the government has increased the money supply -- producing inflation. Whether the inflation rate is 12% or 3%, the result is the same: groceries cost more; clothing costs more; your car costs more. You work harder every year for less purchasing power.

The Federal government is driving your family into bankruptcy.

The government hasn't stopped there. They have borrowed so much money that your children will be sacrificing their entire economic lives to pay the Federal debt.

It seems that no matter who we elect to public office, the government budget gets bigger and the family budget gets smaller.

All too often we have only two choices in an election: a Democrat or a Republican. And no matter which one you vote for, you get higher taxes, bigger deficits, and broken promises.

There is Hope for Your Family
There is a political party that believes the family budget is more important than the Federal budget. A political party that is working to restore the hopes and dreams of every hard-working American family.

It is the Libertarian Party.

Over one hundred Libertarians are currently holding public office. Each of them is working today to keep the government from taking any more of your money. And each of them believes that if government were limited to protecting us against force and fraud, then most Americans would be better off. Less government corruption. No more expensive "boondoggle" projects. No more "special interest" favors at your expense.

The Libertarian Party always defends the family budget. In its entire history, elected Libertarians have never voted to increase taxes. In fact, Libertarians were instrumental in having the Alaska state income tax repealed.

The Libertarian Party will stop the waste in government by decreasing its size and power. We will work to roll back the power of Washington bureaucrats and politicians -- and leave you and your neighbors in control of your own lives.

[Buccaneer]

Against Censorship

"We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself. ...

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:


Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women; ...


Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;
Electronic newspapers, electronic "Yellow Pages", and other new information media, as these deserve full freedom. ...

[cthomer5000]

If we elected Libertarians they would be just like anyone in the position of power. The morals people say they have go out the window when you have power.
being that a lot of their beliefs are radically different from those we currently employ, I think it would be blatantly obvious whether they were acting on their own morals once in office.

your remark just sounds like you spit out a generic post suited for any political thread.

[Joe]

It is easy to say this when you are accustomed to Republicans and Democrats doing it. It's a lot more difficult to prove when you haven't actually seen it happen. I urge you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

Well, thats kinda impossible, as libertarians have never and will never be in power in this country.

[Tekneek]

being that a lot of their beliefs are radically different from those we currently employ, I think it would be blatantly obvious whether they were acting on their own morals once in office.

your remark just sounds like you spit out a generic post suited for any political thread.

It's the "they'll be just like the Repblocrats, so we might as well keep sending those people back into office anyway" excuse for maintaining the status quo. A cop-out.

[Buccaneer]

Note: This is obviously pre-9/11,Afghanistan,Iraq,et al but just the article speaks about the expanded role of involvements throughout the world under Clinton, it has continued under Bush including the Middle East, of course.

Libertarian foreign policy: Defending America (not the world)

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the purpose of America's defense and foreign policy should be to defend the United States, not to act as the world's policeman. Europe and Japan no longer face a Soviet threat and should be expected to bear the cost and responsibility for their own defense. At the same time, the United States should strenuously resist any attempt to coopt U.S. forces into United Nations controlled "peace keeping" efforts. This more realistic defense policy would enable the United States to dramatically reduce its defense spending.

Certainly America's defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States. However, the United States now accounts for 37% of all the world's military spending. Another 30% of world military spending is by countries in Western Europe along with Japan, South Korea, and Israel -- nations which pose no conceivable threat to the United States.

Russia, our former Cold War adversary, certainly represents no military threat. Our military budget is $260 billion; Russia's is less than $80 billion. The Russian army is an organizational nightmare, with 630,000 officers commanding only 544,000 enlisted personnel. Much of its force is incapacitated by low morale and a lack of even the most basic supplies.

China spends less than $7 billion on defense. The most commonly cited rogue states -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba spend a combined $15 billion.

Our massive military budget cannot be needed to defend this country. Why then are we spending more than $262 billion per year? The answer lies in our far-flung and ill-advised commitments around the world. America is bearing the cost for defending the rest of the world.

For example, it costs each American more than $1,000 per year in taxes to pay for the military, while it costs each German or Japanese less than $360 per year. How can we justify these commitments? NATO currently costs American taxpayers more than $90 billion annually. For what purpose? The European Union has a collective population of 370 million, a gross domestic product of $7 trillion per year, and more than two million troops. Surely, these nations can protect themselves from any possible threat. The reinvigorated European Union offers an excellent vehicle to replace NATO and allow European nations to provide for their own security needs.

Likewise, the cost of American efforts to defend Japan and South Korea totals more than $40 billion per year (counting air, ground, and naval forces designated for that purpose as well as ground troops stationed in the two countries). Yet, Japan is an economic giant and South Korea a budding one. Alone or together, both countries are fully capable of defending themselves.

Meanwhile, President Clinton continued to expand U.S. military commitments around the world. For example, he committed 20,000 U.S. troops for "one year" to enforce a Bosnian peace accord. Three years later, thousands of American troops are still there -- with no lasting peace in sight. Why? Because attempting to enforce an inherently unworkable settlement -- on a battleground for contending ethno-religious factions that have fought each other for hundreds of years -- is to recklessly put American lives at risk.

Earl Ravenal, a Distinguished Research Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University, estimates that, if the United States were to pursue a policy of defending its own borders while avoiding foreign intervention, we could realistically reduce our defense budget to as little as $125 billion over the next five years. The beneficial economic impact of such a "peace dividend," if returned to the American people in the form of tax reductions, would be enormous.

[Noop]

It is easy to say this when you are accustomed to Republicans and Democrats doing it. It's a lot more difficult to prove when you haven't actually seen it happen.
They are humans. I am not proving anything other then giving them line of bs I happen to believe. Which is people can not and should have total power over the lives of the masses. We should have better checks and balances to stop some of the stuff that is going on. I don't care if they are Republicans, Democrats or Libertarian I don't have much faith in people like that.

[Buccaneer]

Privacy

"The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. ...

We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods. ...

We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.

We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments. "

[Crapshoot]

being that a lot of their beliefs are radically different from those we currently employ, I think it would be blatantly obvious whether they were acting on their own morals once in office.

your remark just sounds like you spit out a generic post suited for any political thread.
that's exactly what I thought.

[Tekneek]

Well, thats kinda impossible, as libertarians have never and will never be in power in this country.

It's ok to believe that, but to claim they would be just as ethically corrupt as Democrats and Republicans is mere fantasy when you have nothing to back it up with.

[Buccaneer]

Note: This is obviously one of my favorites :)

The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!

The Libertarian Party is working every day to cut your taxes. By contrast, professional politicians from the other parties just want more of your money, and are busy increasing the size of government.

In the last few decades, the federal government has exploded in size. No area of your life or business is free from the meddling of politicians -- especially your wallet.

It doesn't have to be that way. With less government and lower taxes, you could keep more of what you earn. It would be easier to start new businesses, build new homes, and fuel stronger economic growth.

Just Defend Our Rights
Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

How Can We Cut Taxes?
Instead of tending to the basics, government has grown into a bloated conglomerate of political services that gets larger every year -- with no end in sight.

For example, politicians spend millions of dollars to urge people not to smoke -- while spending more millions to subsidize tobacco farmers. They send billions overseas for foreign aid -- while the federal deficit swells. They spend millions to subsidize public art -- while working families struggle to pay their taxes.

Politicians also run trains, bail out savings and loans, construct houses, sell insurance, print books, and build basketball courts -- you name it! But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.

Privatize And Cut Taxes
All over the world, governments are busy selling airlines, power plants, housing, and factories to private owners. Where inefficient government bureaucrats lost money and squandered tax dollars, hard-working private owners now make profits and create new jobs. Why can't we do the same thing in America?

Defend America: Cut Taxes
Military expenses are over $250 billion a year! A large percentage of this is spent overseas to defend wealthy countries like Germany and Japan -- who then wallop us in international trade. Let's take them off military welfare. We can defend America better and save at least $100 billion a year in taxes.

Stop Bailing Out Industry
No one has the right to cover his losses at taxpayer expense -- and yet wealthy corporations demand exactly that. The federal government has bailed out railroads, banks, and other corporations with your tax dollars. This must stop!

Replace Welfare: Cut Taxes
The bulk of your welfare tax dollars goes to pay the handsome salaries of well-educated welfare workers. The poor get little from government welfare except meager handouts and a cycle of despair. Let's get government out of the charity business. Private charities and groups do a better and more efficient job of helping the truly needy get back on their feet.

Why An Income Tax?
Before 1913, federal income taxes were rare and short-lived. America became the most prosperous nation on earth. The U.S. Government did not try to police the world or play "nanny" to everyone from cradle to grave. People took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is how the founders of America thought it should be. And it worked. It can again!

[Tekneek]

They are humans. I am not proving anything other then giving them line of bs I happen to believe. Which is people can not and should have total power over the lives of the masses. We should have better checks and balances to stop some of the stuff that is going on. I don't care if they are Republicans, Democrats or Libertarian I don't have much faith in people like that.

So, you just think human beings are not capable of governing themselves without selling out? Is that what you're saying?

[Joe]

I'm not saying they would be or wouldn't be, I'm just saying its impossible to prove either way.

[Noop]

So, you just think human beings are not capable of governing themselves without selling out? Is that what you're saying?
Basically. With all that money flying around I wouldn't put it pass anyone not to take it.

[cthomer5000]

I don't have much faith in people like that.
people like what? people running for political office?

[Noop]

people like what? people running for political office?
Whats your problem? Did I happen to kick you in the nutts or something?

[Buccaneer]

Well, thats kinda impossible, as libertarians have never and will never be in power in this country.
Not as a political party but perhaps as a mindset. I fully believe that Republicans, some Democrats even and quite a few Independents can be libertarian-minded. That's where the start has to be - esp. at the local and state levels. Once the grassroots have grown, then it can begin to influence the federal level.

[cthomer5000]

Whats your problem? Did I happen to kick you in the nutts or something?
I'm just trying to make some sense out of your generic statements. I'm asking for your help.

[Noop]

I'm just trying to make some sense out of your generic statements. I'm asking for your help.
Generic? Ok whatever...be easy.

[Tekneek]

I'm not saying they would be or wouldn't be, I'm just saying its impossible to prove either way.

You can prove that Democrats and Republicans promise to fix the same things every election and everything seems to be getting worse. Surely that is not proving to be the right path.

[Tekneek]

Basically. With all that money flying around I wouldn't put it pass anyone not to take it.

I'm more inclined to trust a party that has not had a chance to screw things up than falling back on two that continually screw things up and promise to fix the same things every election.

[Buccaneer]

Noop, just when it was safe to read you again. :) You're probably as cynical as I am but one has to base a government upon something. I think the Constitution and limits of the federal govt as it was intended are good places to start.

To all: I know it's a lot of reading and a lot of political words but I hope you can get some elements of truths or thoughts from all of this.

[RendeR]

c'mon noop, you admit to being a seamen-ole fan, you should expect to get kicked regularly....if only by Miami.....

[Noop]

c'mon noop, you admit to being a seamen-ole fan, you should expect to get kicked regularly....if only by Miami.....
I fail to see the point of that? Did I take a shot at you?

Anyway here is a nice quote.

<DT>The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'. Larry Hardiman
</DT>

[cthomer5000]

I think the lifeguard needs to take noop back to the shallow end.

[Mac Howard]

I doubt a libertarian party would behave any differently to the Republicans/Democrats if they achieved any sort of power. We've had an illustration of that recently here in Oz.

In 1977 the Australian Democrat party was begun with the intention of providing the Australian people with a party that didn't suffer from the corruption of the major two - Liberals (right-wing) and Labor. Their slogan was "We'll keep the bastards honest".

For years they had a minor role in parliament and sniped at government sufficiently to build up a reasonable following in the Oz population. When, recently, a close election created a Senate which gave them a significant role they started the wheeling and dealing and began to behave just like the other two parties. Their supporters saw this, reacted and they'll probably be wiped out in the coming election in two weeks.

Power corrupts! That's the truth of it.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I'm more inclined to trust a party that has not had a chance to screw things up than falling back on two that continually screw things up and promise to fix the same things every election.
Just throwing out a thought here....maybe both parties screw things up and promise to fix them as a way of job security? As a way to remain relevant?

Just a theory.

[Noop]

I think the lifeguard needs to take noop back to the shallow end.
It still wont be as shallow are as you are....

[RendeR]

Whats your problem? Did I happen to kick you in the nutts or something?


My bad noop, I was actually replying to your comment above, it may have come across better if I'd remembered to quote it.


just cracking yer helmet man, don't take it to heart.

[Noop]

My bad noop, I was actually replying to your comment above, it may have come across better if I'd remembered to quote it.


just cracking yer helmet man, don't take it to heart.
No problem. Sorry Bucc I dont mean to thread jack I will try to stay on topic if I can.

[Buccaneer]

I doubt a libertarian party would behave any differently to the Republicans/Democrats if they achieved any sort of power. We've had an illustration of that recently here in Oz.

In 1977 the Australian Democrat party was begun with the intention of providing the Australian people with a party that didn't suffer from the corruption of the major two - Liberals (right-wing) and Labor. Their slogan was "We'll keep the bastards honest".

For years they had a minor role in parliament and sniped at government sufficiently to build up a reasonable following in the Oz population. When, recently, a close election created a Senate which gave them a significant role they started the wheeling and dealing and began to behave just like the other two parties. Their supporters saw this, reacted and they'll probably be wiped out in the coming election in two weeks.

Power corrupts! That's the truth of it.
I have no doubt of this, Mac. In the US, the system of government was established to ensure accountability and checks and balances. Theoretically, I would think there would need to be libertarian-minded people in Congress, in the Executive Branch and in the Courts. But since we have given and allowed so much power at the federal level, I really do think we need to start thinking small - at the local levels, then the state and then the monster that is the federal govt.

By the way, I come from many colonial New England families and I guess it's in my blood to distrust federal/centralized authority.

Here's the Tenth Amendment in our Bill of Rights


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Buddy Grant]

Libertarians?!? Sounds like a group of frilly pink jumper wearing gadflys dancing around in fountains ala the old Friends intro. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course.

[GrantDawg]

Noop, just when it was safe to read you again. :) You're probably as cynical as I am but one has to base a government upon something. I think the Constitution and limits of the federal govt as it was intended are good places to start.

To all: I know it's a lot of reading and a lot of political words but I hope you can get some elements of truths or thoughts from all of this.
I actually read it all from the same website you got it earlier this year. It helped me make up my mind that though I have some Libertarian views, I'm definitely not a Libertarian. In fact, some of it pushed me further away from that view point.

[Tekneek]

Just throwing out a thought here....maybe both parties screw things up and promise to fix them as a way of job security? As a way to remain relevant?

Just a theory.

If that is true, that is a great reason to give a different party a chance...if only just to remind them that they are actually accountable for their actions.

[Tekneek]

I actually read it all from the same website you got it earlier this year. It helped me make up my mind that though I have some Libertarian views, I'm definitely not a Libertarian. In fact, some of it pushed me further away from that view point.

Could you elaborate on the problems you have with it?

[SackAttack]

By the way, I come from many colonial New England families and I guess it's in my blood to distrust federal/centralized authority.

Here's the Tenth Amendment in our Bill of Rights


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


And here's the clause in Article I, Section 8, that lets them get away with murder:

The Congress shall have power....To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

I think that one kinda falls into the "It seemed like a good idea at the time" category.

[GrantDawg]

Could you elaborate on the problems you have with it?

Their views on foreign policy and pollution just to name a couple. I do think the government have large roles to play in regulation of evironmental issues and I think isolationism never works. There were more issues on the website, but those two were posted here.

There is another thought here. The Constitution is not a divine document, and the men writing it were not perfect. I think most of modern America would not agree with world view of the 18th century men (aas wise as they were for the time) that wrote this document. It was and is a wonderful piece of political work, and one of the most important documents ever written. It is not perfect (just look how it dealt with slavery), and things do change. Libertarians do not recognize any need to change (except I guess they aren't arguing that Blacks are only 3/5ths a person, and that women shouldn't be able to vote). I don't agree, and the more I looked at the ramifications of their view the more I disagreed.

[Solecismic]

My main disagreements come from their refusal to see where the government can play a positive role (funding the schools, for example) that private industry could not without significant oversight (it would be impractical to have local competition for education without extensive checks in place). And in foreign policies. That military presence and aid around the world is vital in many cases. FDR, I believed, coined many of the phrases attributed to a benevolent democracy.

[Sharpieman]

My main disagreements come from their refusal to see where the government can play a positive role (funding the schools, for example) that private industry could not without significant oversight (it would be impractical to have local competition for education without extensive checks in place). And in foreign policies. That military presence and aid around the world is vital in many cases. FDR, I believed, coined many of the phrases attributed to a benevolent democracy.
I agree with what he said. Plus, with the current climate of Corporate welfare and Corporations f-ing with millions of people and getting away with a lot more than they should, I think the last thing we need is to scale back or get rid of oversight of industries.

[ice4277]

Much like with the Dems and Repubs, there is a little bit of the Libertarian platform I agree with, and much that I don't. I basically echo what GD stated above.

[panerd]

As a teacher, I always go to the education stance first. Their education belief seems to just be a critique of how bad American education is with absolutly no solution except to privitize everything. I consider myself an expert on education and think this is pretty shortsighted. I wonder how many other issues that I am not an expert on (national security, taxes) are just as short-sighted. They make good sound bites, but basically are nothing more than critiques with no solutions.

Another example. Ending the war on drugs. I agree that it isn't working, but just end it? Come on, maybe this is why they never recieve more than a fraction of a percent of the national vote.

[GrantDawg]

They make good sound bites, but basically are nothing more than critiques with no solutions.


Their is solution is "no solution." They think you should fix it for yourself. They believe government should have no hand in education, along with most other issues. And you're right, that is why they'll never be more than the fringe.

[Honolulu_Blue]

BOOKS

The Dewey Decimal system will be strictly adhered to.

All books should be made available to the public. Reference books, however, shall not leave the library.

I can't see how you missed these core beliefs...

[albionmoonlight]

This is a post that I made in response to a previous Bucc post. It is not quite on point with this topic, but it does provide some insight.

People have no idea how much of our lives are controlled by government agencies that operate outside of the traditional system of checks and balances. They are executive branch actors that make the laws (called regulations) that they enforce (and, in the case of the ones that have Administrative Law Judges, they also interpert those laws.). Congress loves these agencies because they allow Congress to pass the buck to them to answer the hard questions for which Congress may be accountable.

And the special interests in this country know just where to put the pressure when they need to affect change. It's the agencies, stupid.

I'm not opposed to the administrative state (personally, I am glad that there are politially unaccountable people in charge of making interstate trucking regulations, because I don't want to take my time to pay attention to it), but any discussion of libertarian style reform has to include a discussion of the administrative state.

Having worked for a year in DC at a large law firm (I guess I am/was one of the "worse of all"), I have some insight into this problem.

The way I see it, government has gotten too big and too complex for the everyday Joe to follow without experts. To take one example (devoid of details, I am sorry to say because of client confidentiality rules). There was a proposed merger that was going to happen between two companies. There were special interests who were opposed to the merger and those who were for the merger. There was adminstrative actions surrounding the merger, as well as possible legislation over the horizon that would affect the merger (if passed). For a few months, I was spending about 20 hours a week researching the various administrative aspects of the merger ("administrative" is lawyer shorthand for government agency) so as to advise our client--one of the special interests.

First, nothing that our client wanted was illegal, or untoward, or even bad. Indeed, as a corporation, it had a duty to do what it could to stay competitive. Far from being "evil," they were doing what every good capitalist should. Second, I was a (supposedly) highly trained professional who was specializing in adminstrative law. I had the limitless resources of a large law firm behind me. And I spent over 100 hours researching one aspect of one potential merger. That amount of work was necessary to properly advise the client.

My point (which I don't know if I made or not) is that it is simply impossible for the everyday Joe to follow the workings of the government--even if he wanted to. If one of you on the board took an interest in a complicated social issue, I contend that it would be impossible for you to learn all you need to know about it to be effective. No one person can anymore. The legislative and administrative state is simply too large and complex.

I don't think that lobbyists are evil. I don't think that special interests are evil. They do, however, have the resources to access the system in a way that is simply impossible for you or me to do anymore. It's not a good system, but I can't think of one with which to replace it either.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola:

Just one example of something on which I worked at the firm. Since 1997, the Department of Transportation has been considering changing the rules regulating how airlines interact with travel agents and with the computerized databases that contain flight information (which are entities separate both from the airlines and from the travel agents).

After considering literally thousands of pages of comments, the DOT made its decision (contained in a 200+ page release) on December 31, 2003. These rule changes have the potential to pretty drastically affect the price that you will pay for air travel in the future. It's an issue about which I imagine most Americans would be interested if they knew about it.

Did you know about this rulemaking? Of course not. Government moves like this every day.

Again--I'm not saying that this is good or bad in itself. Just that it is happening.

[QuikSand]

I subscribe to an awful lot of libertarian principles. But the statements excerpted atop this thread include just about as much claptrap as I've come to expect from the parties that I dislike.

[gi]

Another example. Ending the war on drugs. I agree that it isn't working, but just end it? Come on, maybe this is why they never recieve more than a fraction of a percent of the national vote.
Makes me want to look and see what happened after alcohol was allowed again. For comparison sake.

[John Galt]

As a former libertarian, I'm sympathetic to a lot of that worldview. However, there were certain elements of libertarian ideology that I found lacking.

First, libertarian (and right-wing thought in general) tends to miss patterns and systems. The complete and total focus on the actions of individuals allows groups to (literally and metaphorically) get away with murder. The thought experiment that really drove this point home for me was to imagine a shift to a libertarian government in the US in the 1950's. The question is: would racial discrimination have gone away? At first, I rationalized all the usual market driven forces arguments (businesses that hire blacks would have a competitive advantage, etc.), but those arguments just didn't persuade me over time. If the US had adopted a libertarian government at that time, the power imbalances created by slavery and racism would have been locked in place. Blacks would not have been able to make any real gains in education and I doubt they would even be able to eat at most restuarants today. If the transition to libertarianism was made today, I expect whatever discrimination we have would be locked in as well. Social transformation is inherently tied up in legal change, IMO (although it can occur within and outside the law simultaneously).

Second, libertarian foreign policy doesn't make sense. Sometimes they are isolationist. Sometimes, like with Ayn Rand inspired foreign policy, they can be rabidly adventurist. The problem is the international sphere, anarchy is the rule, but it doesn't have to be. Libertarians have a hard time creating any vision of concept of what kind of world they want to live in because values like "liberty" and "freedom" lack meaning in an environment of anarchy.

Third, I think a lot of social regulation is just plain easier. Some things are pretty basic: I think a government should decide which side of the road people drive on to avoid confusion. Some are more complex: regulation of the products to prevent fraud is probably a good idea because the risk of fly-by-night fraud is too high when the only remedies are torts and police. Stopping things like that at the front end is usually more efficient.

Fourth, basic libertarian philosophy does little to deal with market externalities like pollution. Although this can be modified, the core values of libertarianism are often lost in the process.

[Buccaneer]

I agree with what he said. Plus, with the current climate of Corporate welfare and Corporations f-ing with millions of people and getting away with a lot more than they should, I think the last thing we need is to scale back or get rid of oversight of industries.
But at what cost? Since federal laws cannot be selective, it has to apply to all equally. In order to regulate in response to those few greedy corporations and bad businesses, it has to penalize all of them. But here's the kicker...even after all of such regulations, fundings through taxations and mandates...there still will be corporations and businesses f-ing people. So we allow the federal govt more oversight into all businesses - particularly the millions of businesses that won't be screwing anyone over - and you wonder why jobs are being outsourced and companies cannot hire as many people as they want?

That's basically the probably with federal/centralized authority - it has to penalize everyone for the bad apples. And that has come at a great cost. And also, one can argue that it has not gotten any better despite the powers and fundings given to them.

The solution as I see it is to only keep those regulations that are effective and target the greatest of abuses. We do not need more mountains of regulations just to keep a large bureaucracy busy and the politicians happy. Besides, isn't the most corrupt business in the US Congress?

[Buccaneer]

I subscribe to an awful lot of libertarian principles. But the statements excerpted atop this thread include just about as much claptrap as I've come to expect from the parties that I dislike.
That is the nature of political platforms - coming up with lofty soundbites that anyone can understand and react to.

But here's a question: If you and I subscribe to an awful lot of libertarian principles, how do we make them work in our system?

[John Galt]

One more note - when I was a libertarian, I hated all this federalism nonsense - I don't understand why anyone who really opposes big government wants another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. There is nothing about states that makes them less prone to corruption and endless expansion. I just thought the states should be eliminated as wasteful government programs.

[gi]

Got this from: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Biased, maybe. At least there are sources.

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union.

[QuikSand]

But here's a question: If you and I subscribe to an awful lot of libertarian principles, how do we make them work in our system?

I think you have to do it brick by brick. I'm under no illusion that I'm likely to see any true libertarians getting elected to positions of real influence anytime soon. But I do think that it's worth making it known that these are some of the issues that I hold dearest, and that they often guide my voting.

And I think it makes sense to focus on the spots where there's a real opportunity for change. (And that's where people like you and I, though superficially on the same page here, will probably diverge)

I think that the current federal government's erosion of individual liberties in the name of "security" is a very dangerous policy, possibly the most troubling thing happening domestically. I also think that the pressure to fade the separation between church and state is a dangerous direction to be taking. I see these issues as related -- connected to my general distrust of the ominous power and influence of "the government" as we know it.

My informed guess is that you'd start with taxes -- and suggest that the single most important thing that we can do to ensure our "freedom" is to boost the amount of money that stays in our wallets.

I'd speculate that you'd probably find the things at the top of my list to be fairly minor considerations... and I yours. And there's the rub. Either approach, I think, is fine... but you can see how it quickly becomes difficult for people like us to find a lot of common ground under the same banner. (And it therefore becomes hard for any kind of broad coalition to truly congeal under the auspices of libertarianism -- there are pretty disparate viewpoints out there that both embrace components of this doctrine, without really buying into the whole lot of it)

[Buccaneer]

As a teacher, I always go to the education stance first. Their education belief seems to just be a critique of how bad American education is with absolutly no solution except to privitize everything. I consider myself an expert on education and think this is pretty shortsighted. I wonder how many other issues that I am not an expert on (national security, taxes) are just as short-sighted. They make good sound bites, but basically are nothing more than critiques with no solutions.

Another example. Ending the war on drugs. I agree that it isn't working, but just end it? Come on, maybe this is why they never recieve more than a fraction of a percent of the national vote.
No program can just "end". It would be a gradual thing but doesn't anyone agree that it reversing the "Wars" would be a better way to go then continuing to fund a failed program and to give them more powers (re: Police State) just to see if it would make a difference? That's the point, besides the typical political rhetoric above - a mindset of not maintaining the costly, intrusive (re: loss of civil liberties) status quo we have now.

[panerd]

Got this from: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Biased, maybe. At least there are sources.

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union.

Agree to a certain extent. I think lifting the harsh penalties on pot would probably be similar to what happened in the 30's. But I am not sure that I am a big fan of legal coke or legal smack.

[QuikSand]

One more note - when I was a libertarian, I hated all this federalism nonsense - I don't understand why anyone who really opposes big government wants another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. There is nothing about states that makes them less prone to corruption and endless expansion. I just thought the states should be eliminated as wasteful government programs.

Fair point -- but I think there is something to the notion of electoral freedom. If it's only the state you live in that adopt policies you abhor, it's a fairly easy thing to do to move to another state that does less. Someone who doesn't like paying taxes for social programs or education can move to Idaho or some other place that makes different choices about governance. Being able to make these decisions at lower levels of governments (the state level, at least, but even better at the city/community level) allows people to select their community based on public service provision, without having to give up citizenship or national residence to do so (which you might if all these decisions were made federally).

I happen to think there are deep flaws with such a system (I happen to join you in criticizing the Libs for missing the big picture "system" here) but it's at least a coherent philosophy.

[Buccaneer]

I think you have to do it brick by brick. I'm under no illusion that I'm likely to see any true libertarians getting elected to positions of real influence anytime soon. But I do think that it's worth making it known that these are some of the issues that I hold dearest, and that they often guide my voting.

And I think it makes sense to focus on the spots where there's a real opportunity for change. (And that's where people like you and I, though superficially on the same page here, will probably diverge)

I think that the current federal government's erosion of individual liberties in the name of "security" is a very dangerous policy, possibly the most troubling thing happening domestically. I also think that the pressure to fade the separation between church and state is a dangerous direction to be taking. I see these issues as related -- connected to my general distrust of the ominous power and influence of "the government" as we know it.

My informed guess is that you'd start with taxes -- and suggest that the single most important thing that we can do to ensure our "freedom" is to boost the amount of money that stays in our wallets.

I'd speculate that you'd probably find the things at the top of my list to be fairly minor considerations... and I yours. And there's the rub. Either approach, I think, is fine... but you can see how it quickly becomes difficult for people like us to find a lot of common ground under the same banner. (And it therefore becomes hard for any kind of broad coalition to truly congeal under the auspices of libertarianism -- there are pretty disparate viewpoints out there that both embrace components of this doctrine, without really buying into the whole lot of it)
I think as I tried to state at first, I agree with you that it cannot be in the form of political party. I guess I would focus on changing voters and votees mindset.

An example can make this point. The bi-partisan Patriot Act was gleefully cheered, except by libertarian-minded people. Now some are beginning to see that giving the govt more powers in the name of security may not be a good thing. If people don't want more expansion of federal govt oversights into civil liberties, wouldn't it also look at others areas? The black community is now on board with school choice. Hispanics want less immigration restrictions. And others.

I've got to go to work now, I'm late.

[QuikSand]

The solution as I see it is to only keep those regulations that are effective and target the greatest of abuses. We do not need more mountains of regulations just to keep a large bureaucracy busy and the politicians happy. Besides, isn't the most corrupt business in the US Congress?

With all due respect, I just view this as hollow political rhetoric.

I really don't believe the argument that the "mountains of regulations" are there just for the purposes of busy bureaucrats and happy politicians. I think each pebble in that mountain was placed there because someone well-intended believed it was in the public's interest.

Regulations exist to protect workers, to safeguard the public, to defend the environment, and to otherwise act on behalf of a public that simply is unable to comprehend each and every component of every single thing that happens in this vastly complex market-based economy and culture.

You can argue all you want that "mountains of regulations" are the problem -- and when you say "let's only keep the good regulations and get rid of the bad ones" you'd get a roar of support from your libertarian friends -- but what are you really saying? One by one, you can sit down and study regulations on all sorts of businesses -- and you'll find that there's an awful lot of sense to them. "At what cost" is the fair question, you're right -- I just think that this is far from the slam dunk you portray here.

[John Galt]

The bi-partisan Patriot Act was gleefully cheered, except by libertarian-minded people.

I think the Patriot Act was opposed by a lot of people who were not libertarian minded (especially in many groups on the Left end of the spectrum). It was mostly people in the two mainstream parties that supported it (although there was some opposition), because I believe most people in the "mainstream" believe their views and speech would never be in jeopardy (whereas those on the political fringes knew they would be targets).

[QuikSand]

Regrettably, in current political discourse, any but the most articulate opponents of things like the Patriot Act (or others who oppose intrusions into individual liberties in the name of homeland security) are immediately painted as "soft on crime" or worse, "sort on terrorism."

I don't think the two things equate -- but with so many voters responding to hot button descriptions like that, it's hard to stand for things like rights of the accused and get elected to any sort of office. Hell, you basically can't get elecetd to anything while raising any doubts about the death penalty any longer -- it's only the most secure (or lame duck) officials who can raise concerns with that any more.

[albionmoonlight]

The "soft on crime" rhetoric actually makes our streets less safe. There has been a growing trend over the last decade or so to federalize "street crimes," i.e. to make crimes that have traditionally been addressed by the states (rape, robbery, etc.) federal offenses. The reason for this trend is pretty obvious. A crime happens somewhere. Federal elected officials, knowing that being "tough on crime" is political gold, jump on the opportunity to either make the behavior a federal crime or to toughen/expand the reach of the federal criminal law into the area. Other politicians--even if they have well thought out objections to the proposal--cannot vote against it because being seen as "soft on crime" is political suicide.

What this has led to is less effective law enforcement overall. Federal crimes are increased without a coorosponding increase in the resources to handle these crimes--leading to less effective enforcement overall. In addition, local DAs and federal prosecutors enter into "turf wars" to make sure that they are getting enough collars either to get reelected or please their bosses. Additionally, the federal criminal code has no guiding principle behind it, being instead a hodgepodge, ad hoc system. These factors, taken together, lead some to conclude that these "tough on crime" federal statutes actually lead to worse law enforcement overall.

There should, of course, be some federal crimes (counterfiting, securities regulation, etc.), but the knee-jerk "throw 'em under the jail" approach taken by the federal government to street crime is not good for any of us.

(There are, of course, concerns involving federalisim generally and defendants' rights not addressed by the above. I find it most striking, however, that, whatever your objections to federal criminal statutes--they tend not to work.).

For review:

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/fedcrimlaw2.pdf

[Solecismic]

The "soft on crime" rhetoric actually makes our streets less safe. There has been a growing trend over the last decade or so to federalize "street crimes," i.e. to make crimes that have traditionally been addressed by the states (rape, robbery, etc.) federal offenses. The reason for this trend is pretty obvious. A crime happens somewhere. Federal elected officials, knowing that being "tough on crime" is political gold, jump on the opportunity to either make the behavior a federal crime or to toughen/expand the reach of the federal criminal law into the area. Other politicians--even if they have well thought out objections to the proposal--cannot vote against it because being seen as "soft on crime" is political suicide.

What this has led to is less effective law enforcement overall. Federal crimes are increased without a coorosponding increase in the resources to handle these crimes--leading to less effective enforcement overall. In addition, local DAs and federal prosecutors enter into "turf wars" to make sure that they are getting enough collars either to get reelected or please their bosses. Additionally, the federal criminal code has no guiding principle behind it, being instead a hodgepodge, ad hoc system. These factors, taken together, lead some to conclude that these "tough on crime" federal statutes actually lead to worse law enforcement overall.

There should, of course, be some federal crimes (counterfiting, securities regulation, etc.), but the knee-jerk "throw 'em under the jail" approach taken by the federal government to street crime is not good for any of us.

(There are, of course, concerns involving federalisim generally and defendants' rights not addressed by the above. I find it most striking, however, that, whatever your objections to federal criminal statutes--they tend not to work.).

For review:

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/fedcrimlaw2.pdf

Yet the crime rate keeps dropping, even though the economy has not done as well the last four years as it did the previous ten.

There was a continual outcry for longer sentencing, and I believe it has taken a lot of bad people off of the streets.

Whether that's due to local or federal pressures I have no idea. The notion of ensuring that victims are compensated by the perpetrators seems like a wonderful idea.

[PittFan]

It is easy to say this when you are accustomed to Republicans and Democrats doing it. It's a lot more difficult to prove when you haven't actually seen it happen. I urge you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

O.K., let's see. While this cannot be proved in the U.S. let us look at world history where fringe groups promising a better life for its citizens have taken power:

- 1917 Russian Revolution
- Benito Mussilini
- The Nazis
- The Japanese Military Gov't (1920's - 30's)
- The Chinese Revolution of 1949
- Noriega
- Fidel Castro

To name a few. While the Libertarian Party aren't this extreme (I hope), I believe that this proves that propaganda from fringe groups always sounds better than will actually occur.

[Desnudo]

O.K., let's see. While this cannot be proved in the U.S. let us look at world history where fringe groups promising a better life for its citizens have taken power:

- 1917 Russian Revolution
- Benito Mussilini
- The Nazis
- The Japanese Military Gov't (1920's - 30's)
- The Chinese Revolution of 1949
- Noriega
- Fidel Castro

To name a few. While the Libertarian Party aren't this extreme (I hope), I believe that this proves that propaganda from fringe groups always sounds better than will actually occur.

Communism and Fascism. What you've proven is that neither works.

[Buccaneer]

With all due respect, I just view this as hollow political rhetoric.

I really don't believe the argument that the "mountains of regulations" are there just for the purposes of busy bureaucrats and happy politicians. I think each pebble in that mountain was placed there because someone well-intended believed it was in the public's interest.

Regulations exist to protect workers, to safeguard the public, to defend the environment, and to otherwise act on behalf of a public that simply is unable to comprehend each and every component of every single thing that happens in this vastly complex market-based economy and culture.

You can argue all you want that "mountains of regulations" are the problem -- and when you say "let's only keep the good regulations and get rid of the bad ones" you'd get a roar of support from your libertarian friends -- but what are you really saying? One by one, you can sit down and study regulations on all sorts of businesses -- and you'll find that there's an awful lot of sense to them. "At what cost" is the fair question, you're right -- I just think that this is far from the slam dunk you portray here.
I understand. I react to the mindset that every corruption, "bad" behavior, scam, greediness, etc. must countered with another set of laws and regulations - when there are existing laws and regulations on the books that are not enforced. Maybe it gets to the point that we cannot (or should not) eliminate all such sinful acts of humans because 1) it would cause potential harm to those not engaging in such acts and 2) the cost (in relation to the benefits) become too high. To reach perhaps an illogical extreme, only a fully enacted Police State can combat all personal and corporate crimes. Is that where we are heading?

By emphasizing common sense in laws and public behaviors, and personal responsibility, injustice and crimes will still be committed because of human nature but we would gain more control of our liberties and pocketbooks than we do now.

The problems and solutions are not slam dunk but a simple declaration is what is needed to get started down a different path than the status quo of the mainstream parties. In history, the actual path to American revolution was certainly complex but it got started by emphasizing (and brow beating) one concept over and over - independence.

[Tekneek]

I agree with what he said. Plus, with the current climate of Corporate welfare and Corporations f-ing with millions of people and getting away with a lot more than they should, I think the last thing we need is to scale back or get rid of oversight of industries.

For this to work it requires that people not act like lemmings. People would have the responsibility to be educated and not give their money to horrible corporations who mistreat their employees and investors. In today's USA, people are ignorant enough to even brag about the deal they are getting by signing on with MCI/Worldcom to save a few bucks. The reason they're saving money is because that company fucked millions of other people, but don't let that get in the way of your own bottomline.

[Tekneek]

Another example. Ending the war on drugs. I agree that it isn't working, but just end it? Come on, maybe this is why they never recieve more than a fraction of a percent of the national vote.

Is the current War on Drugs accomplishing anything useful? Our rights and liberties get intruded on constantly in the name of it. Streets and neighborhoods can be turned into gang turf based completely on the drug trade. Cops neglect other crimes with actual victims to make drug busts. I'm willing to accept people buying their cocaine at Eckerd's if it means that property forfeiture laws and no-knock warrants are done away with.

[Tekneek]

Their is solution is "no solution." They think you should fix it for yourself. They believe government should have no hand in education, along with most other issues. And you're right, that is why they'll never be more than the fringe.

Why is it a given that the government should be educating your children anyway? That's a concept that I've never totally understood. We think the government routinely lies, distorts, and generally just can't be trusted. They make huge blunders like sending our soldiers in to Iraq on shoddy intelligence work, but we should trust them to handle the education of our children? I'm wondering where the punch line to that joke is.

[Tekneek]

Sometimes they are isolationist.

Isolationist? I never got that impression. They simply don't want our military touring the globe constantly. They want trade with all nations, even those that we may not agree with. That seems far from isolationist, IMHO. Stop propping up governments, or picking sides in civil wars. This almost always comes back to bite us in the ass and we never seem to learn our lesson. Stop being so arrogant to think that the world needs and wants American democracy delivered with bombs, tanks, and guns.

[Tekneek]

It was mostly people in the two mainstream parties that supported it (although there was some opposition), because I believe most people in the "mainstream" believe their views and speech would never be in jeopardy (whereas those on the political fringes knew they would be targets).

It was more than that, IMHO. The two mainstream parties expect to keep their grip on government in this country. To that end, anything that makes that government more powerful works in their favor. That's why THEY like it, because they can use it to wield a bigger and sharper sword against the people in this country.

[timmynausea]

Look how much power, wealth and influence corporations have with all of these regulations we currently have. You think things will be less corrupt if those regulations are stripped away?

The argument has been stated, somewhere in this thread, that government regulations have forced companies to outsource American jobs. What about GM laying thousands of people off during times the company was making huge profits? What about the trends of record corporate profits over the past 20 years (particularly before W.) while workers wages have stagnated during the same period? What about the trend of CEO's salaries growing ridiculously during times the company is losing money and laying off workers?

How can anyone argue that huge wealthy interests are not the source of the corruption? If we limit the power of the government to regulate these companies, I just really don't see how it would in any way encourage an end to the symptoms of a corrupt government.