Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[Dot Com]

Libertarianism is theoretical and most people outgrow believing that it can be successfully implemented as they mature. Therefore it may not be un American because one has to be deemed an adult to be judged.

 

[PredFan]

No.

Next question?

 

[Dot Com]

un American? Maybe. Anti-intellectual? Positively.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

un American? Maybe. Anti-intellectual? Positively.

O.K. I'll bite.

Please lay it out.

I would be very interested.

After all, the only way you can fight something that is anti-intellectual is with something that is intellectual.

Just looking at your five word post. I see a claim, but no argument. Was that an example of how not to do things ?

Or were you trying to be ironic in your post.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Libertarianism is theoretical and most people outgrow believing that it can be successfully implemented as they mature. Therefore it may not be un American because one has to be deemed an adult to be judged.

The same can be said for liberal and conservative values.

You only get them in their purity if you all believe the same way.

The libertarians are making strides in becoming more relevant.

Free State Project - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Free State Project (FSP) is a political migration, founded in 2001, to recruit at least 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire, selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas.[2] The project seeks to overcome the historical ineffectiveness of limited-government activism which they believe was caused by the small number and diffuse population of libertarian activists across the 50 United States and around the world.

Participants sign a statement of intent declaring that they intend to move to New Hampshire within five years of the drive reaching 20,000 participants. This statement of intent is intended to function as a form of assurance contract. As of March 13th 2015, 16,523 people have signed this statement of intent[3] and 1,702 people are listed as "early movers" to New Hampshire on the FSP website, saying they have made their move prior to the 20,000-participant trigger.[4]

People aligned with the Free State Project have been elected to two-year terms in the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives since 2006.[5] Approximately a dozen Free Staters were elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in the 2012 election,[6] and about 18 in the 2014 election.

The Free State Project is a social movement generally based upon decentralized decision making. The group hosts various events, but most of FSP's activities depend upon volunteers, and no formal plan dictates to participants or movers what their actions should be in New Hampshire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In December 2012, state representative Cynthia Chase (D-Keene) said "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny how those who like to think of themselves as open minded find those with different opinions to suddenly be a "threat".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Libertarianism is theoretical and most people outgrow believing that it can be successfully implemented as they mature. Therefore it may not be un American because one has to be deemed an adult to be judged.

The same can be said for liberal and conservative values.

You only get them in their purity if you all believe the same way.

The libertarians are making strides in becoming more relevant.

Free State Project - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Free State Project (FSP) is a political migration, founded in 2001, to recruit at least 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire, selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas.[2] The project seeks to overcome the historical ineffectiveness of limited-government activism which they believe was caused by the small number and diffuse population of libertarian activists across the 50 United States and around the world.

Participants sign a statement of intent declaring that they intend to move to New Hampshire within five years of the drive reaching 20,000 participants. This statement of intent is intended to function as a form of assurance contract. As of March 13th 2015, 16,523 people have signed this statement of intent[3] and 1,702 people are listed as "early movers" to New Hampshire on the FSP website, saying they have made their move prior to the 20,000-participant trigger.[4]

People aligned with the Free State Project have been elected to two-year terms in the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives since 2006.[5] Approximately a dozen Free Staters were elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in the 2012 election,[6] and about 18 in the 2014 election.

The Free State Project is a social movement generally based upon decentralized decision making. The group hosts various events, but most of FSP's activities depend upon volunteers, and no formal plan dictates to participants or movers what their actions should be in New Hampshire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In December 2012, state representative Cynthia Chase (D-Keene) said "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny how those who like to think of themselves as open minded find those with different opinions to suddenly be a "threat".

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe that Libertarianism is benign hasn't studied history.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Libertarianism is theoretical and most people outgrow believing that it can be successfully implemented as they mature. Therefore it may not be un American because one has to be deemed an adult to be judged.

The same can be said for liberal and conservative values.

You only get them in their purity if you all believe the same way.

The libertarians are making strides in becoming more relevant.

Free State Project - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Free State Project (FSP) is a political migration, founded in 2001, to recruit at least 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire, selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas.[2] The project seeks to overcome the historical ineffectiveness of limited-government activism which they believe was caused by the small number and diffuse population of libertarian activists across the 50 United States and around the world.

Participants sign a statement of intent declaring that they intend to move to New Hampshire within five years of the drive reaching 20,000 participants. This statement of intent is intended to function as a form of assurance contract. As of March 13th 2015, 16,523 people have signed this statement of intent[3] and 1,702 people are listed as "early movers" to New Hampshire on the FSP website, saying they have made their move prior to the 20,000-participant trigger.[4]

People aligned with the Free State Project have been elected to two-year terms in the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives since 2006.[5] Approximately a dozen Free Staters were elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in the 2012 election,[6] and about 18 in the 2014 election.

The Free State Project is a social movement generally based upon decentralized decision making. The group hosts various events, but most of FSP's activities depend upon volunteers, and no formal plan dictates to participants or movers what their actions should be in New Hampshire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In December 2012, state representative Cynthia Chase (D-Keene) said "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny how those who like to think of themselves as open minded find those with different opinions to suddenly be a "threat".

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe that Libertarianism is benign hasn't studied history.

Oh, thank you for clearing that up for me. ROTFLMAO

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Libertarianism is theoretical and most people outgrow believing that it can be successfully implemented as they mature. Therefore it may not be un American because one has to be deemed an adult to be judged.

The same can be said for liberal and conservative values.

You only get them in their purity if you all believe the same way.

The libertarians are making strides in becoming more relevant.

Free State Project - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Free State Project (FSP) is a political migration, founded in 2001, to recruit at least 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire, selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas.[2] The project seeks to overcome the historical ineffectiveness of limited-government activism which they believe was caused by the small number and diffuse population of libertarian activists across the 50 United States and around the world.

Participants sign a statement of intent declaring that they intend to move to New Hampshire within five years of the drive reaching 20,000 participants. This statement of intent is intended to function as a form of assurance contract. As of March 13th 2015, 16,523 people have signed this statement of intent[3] and 1,702 people are listed as "early movers" to New Hampshire on the FSP website, saying they have made their move prior to the 20,000-participant trigger.[4]

People aligned with the Free State Project have been elected to two-year terms in the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives since 2006.[5] Approximately a dozen Free Staters were elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in the 2012 election,[6] and about 18 in the 2014 election.

The Free State Project is a social movement generally based upon decentralized decision making. The group hosts various events, but most of FSP's activities depend upon volunteers, and no formal plan dictates to participants or movers what their actions should be in New Hampshire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In December 2012, state representative Cynthia Chase (D-Keene) said "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny how those who like to think of themselves as open minded find those with different opinions to suddenly be a "threat".

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe that Libertarianism is benign hasn't studied history.

You could say the same thing about religion.

However, I don't put the stupidity of humans in the place of a viable ideology.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Libertarianism is theoretical and most people outgrow believing that it can be successfully implemented as they mature. Therefore it may not be un American because one has to be deemed an adult to be judged.

The same can be said for liberal and conservative values.

You only get them in their purity if you all believe the same way.

The libertarians are making strides in becoming more relevant.

Free State Project - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Free State Project (FSP) is a political migration, founded in 2001, to recruit at least 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire, selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas.[2] The project seeks to overcome the historical ineffectiveness of limited-government activism which they believe was caused by the small number and diffuse population of libertarian activists across the 50 United States and around the world.

Participants sign a statement of intent declaring that they intend to move to New Hampshire within five years of the drive reaching 20,000 participants. This statement of intent is intended to function as a form of assurance contract. As of March 13th 2015, 16,523 people have signed this statement of intent[3] and 1,702 people are listed as "early movers" to New Hampshire on the FSP website, saying they have made their move prior to the 20,000-participant trigger.[4]

People aligned with the Free State Project have been elected to two-year terms in the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives since 2006.[5] Approximately a dozen Free Staters were elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in the 2012 election,[6] and about 18 in the 2014 election.

The Free State Project is a social movement generally based upon decentralized decision making. The group hosts various events, but most of FSP's activities depend upon volunteers, and no formal plan dictates to participants or movers what their actions should be in New Hampshire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In December 2012, state representative Cynthia Chase (D-Keene) said "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny how those who like to think of themselves as open minded find those with different opinions to suddenly be a "threat".

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe that Libertarianism is benign hasn't studied history.

You could say the same thing about religion.

However, I don't put the stupidity of humans in the place of a viable ideology.

Are you claiming that Libertarianism is a "viable ideology"?

 

[RKMBrown]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

No. Your definition of libertarian-ism is incorrect. But I do understand your need to incorrectly define it. Frankly, I pity you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

No. Your definition of libertarian-ism is incorrect. But I do understand your need to incorrectly define it. Frankly, I pity you.

Please feel free to provide the "correct" definition of Libertarianism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too many liberts have too many definitions, so they cannot come to a logical definition overwhelmingly accepted by other libertarians. RKM's definition is one of so many that the boggle the mind.

Libertarian models have never worked for more than a few years in America, normally in the Wet, and failed within a few short years.

Many economic conservatives call their programs libertarian, when they are not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

No. Your definition of libertarian-ism is incorrect. But I do understand your need to incorrectly define it. Frankly, I pity you.

Please feel free to provide the "correct" definition of Libertarianism.

Please do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Libertarianism is not about absolutes. Libertarianism is about ensuring liberty, not ensuring anarchy. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take away someone else's liberty.

Thus your definition of libertarianism falls on face. No offense. If you want to attack libertarians, how about starting from what they say vs. what democrats and republicans say they say. Here are the libertarian party statements on current issues:

Current Issues Libertarian Party

The Economy
"A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society." - Libertarian Party Platform, Section 2.0 (adopted: May 2008)

The Bush/Obama Bailouts
Everybody is looking for a handout.

Politicians looking to appease their nervous constituency, interest groups (both from the United Auto Workers and those representing Big Automotive) looking for a handout and know-nothing political pundits looking for a juicy story will all tell you this is necessary for the economic well being of the nation.

In this time of economic turmoil, it's easy to suggest government has the answers, especially when it is backed by sweet-sounding rhetoric and promises of better times. For those that don't know the historical failures of government intervention in the market, it just might sound good enough to swallow.

However, like most government programs, the reality is far, far different from the rhetoric.

Bailouts are ALWAYS bad for the taxpayer, for the economy, and for business. Why? Because rewarding the mismanagement of American corporations with a taxpayer-subsidized lifeline does NOTHING to encourage reform or fix the problems that pushed the companies to the brink of failure. As we said in a statement, these bailouts do nothing but prolong the inevitable collapse of companies suffering from extreme mismanagement and poor investments.

This is especially true in the case of automotive companies.

Detroit auto manufacturers have failed to keep up with trends in the automotive industry, locked themselves into destructive union contracts and demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in automotive innovations that make their products enticing to consumers.

Why are taxpayers being used to reward this mismanagement?

This is why Daniel J. Mitchell, a senior fellow at The Cato Institute, said the bailouts were like "giving an alcoholic the key to a liquor cabinet." Mitchell went on to listthree important reasons why bailouts are bad news:

• A bailout will hurt the overall economy by misallocating resources. When politicians grant special favors to a certain industry or a particular union, such decisions necessarily mean that market forces are being replaced by special-interest deal-making. This type of interference with free markets is why nations such as France, Germany and Japan tend to grow more slowly and enjoy less prosperity.

But if America goes down this same path of government intervention, it is inevitable that we will suffer the same fate of stagnation and higher unemployment.

• A bailout will encourage other industries to seek taxpayer handouts. The Wall Street bailout was a disaster in many ways, most notably as measured by the weak stock market and economic volatility. But another negative aspect of the bailout is that other industries have now decided that it is OK to stick their snouts in the public trough, as well.

First Wall Street's high fliers get a bailout. Now the inefficient management and union at the Big Three want a handout. Who will be next in line to pillage taxpayers? Giving handouts in exchange for political support is akin to getting high. Once politicians decide they like the buzz of campaign contributions, they'll turn into junkies with ordinary Americans footing the bill.

• A bailout is a perverse transfer from poor taxpayers to rich taxpayers. America's Founding Fathers surely never envisaged that the federal government would take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group. Yet much of the federal budget is devoted to redistribution programs.

So, if the government can't bail-out these companies, what should happen to them?

Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy is by no means a no-hassle "way-out" for companies that have made bad decisions in the past, but it is by far preferable to taxpayers footing the bill for these companies struggling to stay afloat.

Bankruptcy will allow these companies to restructure to a more cost effective format, and it will allow them to "trim the fat" from their overhead so that they may once again become productive (and profitable) without risking trillions of dollars in taxpayer money. With court-oversight, these automotive factories may also redo expensive and entangling contracts with the Unions—a major reason why these automotive companies have become so costly to operate.

Overall, letting these companies go into restructuring, instead of preserving the status quo with taxpayer funds, is best for the long-term economic stability of both these companies and the nation.

There is no magic bullet for the current economic situation. However, we can learn from our mistakes, and refuse to repeat them—that is, don't run to the government to solve the problems that the marketplace should be taking care of itself.

At the beginning of the financial crisis, before government decided it would bailout these firms (by the way, check out how your money is being spent), other companies were looking to buy up their devalued competitors. Then, government rushed in to do a patch-job, and ended what could have been a very healthy market work-out without the government's help. Instead, government made the problem worse, with your money on the line.

Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats were behind it, leaving the taxpayers with no representation while their money was at stake.

Only the Libertarian Party is the true friend of the taxpayer, and we want you to know we are working night and day to maximize your economic freedom by limiting the power of the government to get involved in the economy. Keeping government out of the economy, save for a few necessary functions like protecting property rights, adjudicating disputes, and providing a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected, is the best recipe for the long-term stability of the U.S. economy.

Fiscal Responsibility
When the Democrats previously controlled Congress, they spent a lot of our hard-earned money on entitlement programs and pork barrel spending. When the Republicans gained control of Congress, they spent even more of our hard-earned dollars in the same reckless manner. Then Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, and have only added to the increasing government debt without slowing the spending of their Republican colleagues.

No where is this more true than with the current bailouts, where trillions of dollars will be borrowed with the expectation that future generations will pay for it.

Of course, Congress can’t take the entire blame for bad spending bills. George W. Bush never found it important enough to veto even one bloated Republican spending bill and Barack Obama is building on that Republican tradition of big spending.

While we are amassing a tremendous federal deficit, many Americans are forced to make tough decisions about retirement, health insurance and even the education of our children. It is imperative that we immediately cease the wasteful federal spending so we can pare down the national debt and significantly increase the amount of our own money we get to keep. The federal debts aren’t going away and there are but two choices we can make. We can either tighten our belts a bit today or force our children and grandchildren to starve tomorrow. It’s time that we start expecting our representatives in Washington to act with the national checkbook as we do with our family checkbooks.

Some LP statements on the economy:

• Logic Behind Auto Bailout: 'Insanity'
• The Hill Asks: "Have the Big Three Made a Strong Enough Case for a Bailout?"
• Libertarian Party Replaces GOP as Party of Free Market Advocates
• Businessmen are Bad for Capitalism
• Time For Real Economic Reform
• BARR: No more government guarantees

Civil Liberties
"The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency." - Libertarian Party Platform, Section 3.1 (adopted: May 2008)

Your Rights Are At Risk Under Obama
The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, significantly limit the power of the federal government to usurp the rights of private citizens. The Bill of Rights provides the well-known freedoms of speech, of the press, assembly and religious worship. It also provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, compelled self-incrimination and double jeopardy. It guarantees the right to an impartial jury and denies the government the ability to compel self-incrimination.

Over the past few years, we have seen repeated government attempts to circumvent or even blatantly disregard the most basic of our guaranteed personal liberties. Rarely a day passes where there isn’t some major media mention of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, secret prisons, the use of torture or domestic spying.

Under Obama, the government may still snoop into the most personal of your mail or your e-mail and you won’t even know they were there. People are arrested and held without trial or legal representation. Sometimes they are even tortured. They can now use your cellular phone as a bugging device, even if you aren’t currently talking on it at the time.

It is essential that we repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and that we restrain the Executive Branch to the limitations set forth in our Constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

Too many liberts have too many definitions, so they cannot come to a logical definition overwhelmingly accepted by other libertarians. RKM's definition is one of so many that the boggle the mind.

Libertarian models have never worked for more than a few years in America, normally in the Wet, and failed within a few short years.

Many economic conservatives call their programs libertarian, when they are not.

As with democrats and republicans, some people in every party are going to be fringe whacks. Yes, there are marxists and racists in the democrat party, as well as progressives and socialists who just want things to be fair. Yes, there are all kinds of odd groups of people in the republican party as well. And yes, there are some anarchists and corporatists who like to call themselves libertarians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fair enough. RKM, why are libertarian unable to gain major traction in American politics?

 

[Dot Com]

What Mitchell fails to see is that without the "bail-out", the U.S., being the world's reserve currency at present, would have gone into a death spiral meaning world wide depression and very possible relegation to a backwater-status. Fiat currency, which i don't necessarily support, is the reason the U.S. is in the lead. That and we build the kewlest WMD on the taxpayer dime.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well since this is being structured as a "debate," somebody will have to give an objective definition of what exactly constitutes American in this sense. You're obviously not referring to nationality, but some ideal of Americanism. Since objectively defining such a thing is impossible the entire debate is moot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, we have learned from Foxfyre that such things are moot anyway.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, we have learned from Foxfyre that such things are moot anyway.

Didn't read the whole thread, can you link me to Fox's reply?