The political Libertarian platform.

[Vater Araignee]

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. 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.

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

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 Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.

3.6 Representative Government

We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I've long been a "fan" lets call it of Libertarianism, and was a card carrying Libertarian for years, I used to tell peopleleast I was a Libertarian and wish there was a viable candidate that had an actual chance of getting elected. (the two party system is pretty poor) I still subscribe to Reason magazine and listen to various podcast but, I'm starting to feel its impractical in a strict sense, especially when it comes to the economy and the enviornment. People will not, of their own choice (in general) treat natural resources with respect, nor will they treat the economy properly out of their good nature. The use of force is often necessarily for more than just personal welfare but group welfare, and how to determine what is good for the group always falls on individuals, of unequal decision making power.

Also the free market really fails epicly in many cases despite the eloquent arguments in The Economist and Reason and other places. Even though it "feels" like a truly free market would eventually "sort itself out" , it wont. People are too greedy. Even the quasi-free market we have now has lead to the removal of stop gaps in the market that would have avoided many of the major economic crashes (including the most recent one).

Socialism while being a dirty word does have its place. We need some sort of blending of Republicanism (in the tradtional sense) Socialism (in a mild sense) and Libritarian ideology is my best guess. Its always a work in progress unfortuantely with no "final answer."

[Vater Araignee]

I've long been a "fan" lets call it of Libertarianism, and was a card carrying Libertarian for years, I used to tell peopleleast I was a Libertarian and wish there was a viable candidate that had an actual chance of getting elected. (the two party system is pretty poor) I still subscribe to Reason magazine and listen to various podcast but, I'm starting to feel its impractical in a strict sense, especially when it comes to the economy and the enviornment. People will not, of their own choice (in general) treat natural resources with respect, nor will they treat the economy properly out of their good nature. The use of force is often necessarily for more than just personal welfare but group welfare, and how to determine what is good for the group always falls on individuals, of unequal decision making power.

The party recognizes that, and points out that the problem is also the solution.

Also the free market really fails epicly in many cases despite the eloquent arguments in The Economist and Reason and other places. Even though it "feels" like a truly free market would eventually "sort itself out" , it wont. People are too greedy. Even the quasi-free market we have now has lead to the removal of stop gaps in the market that would have avoided many of the major economic crashes (including the most recent one).

Socialism while being a dirty word does have its place. We need some sort of blending of Republicanism (in the tradtional sense) Socialism (in a mild sense) and Libritarian ideology is my best guess. Its always a work in progress unfortuantely with no "final answer."

For environment issues, it works and works well.

Lets say you and I have property that boarders each other. You decide that you want to clear cut and herbicide every square inch of you property. Libertarianism only says that that is OK to those who don't think. You have to look at how that behavior will effect my property. Will your herbicides leach onto my property and destroy my plants and poison my water supply? Will the bare soil lead to erosion that start attacking my property because it starts exposing the roots of my plants and kills them? You could possibly even pose a mud slide risk wiping out my home.

Libertarianism isn't about selfishness, it is about personal responsibility, and you number one responsibility is to insure you don't infringe upon the Liberties of another without their consent.

Before for I can actually comment comprehensively on free market, you have to define the type of free market.

Example: Free market doesn't necessarily mean monopolies are allowed.

See when most people who don't understand the nuances hear free market they picture what turns out to be Anarcho-Capitalism. The only economies I can envision that are more despicable are socialistic or communistic because lets face it, no one has the right to forcefully benefit from the fruits of anothers labors.

Read my Decrypting Newspeak thread.

Say did you know that the number 1 legal obligation of all corporations is to profit? Yeah, that's what I said legal obligation. If I was legally obligated to profit, you better bet your ass I would violate other laws if the profit margin would acquire me 1 more cent than the fine that got levied. Add in the fact that the antitrust laws for all intents and purposes don't exist anymore and the boot straps have been effectively cut off of the 99.5%.

I can agree that socialism has its place, but only for those who volunteer.

I can be happy with "little" if I don't have to worry about shelter and food so why should I work if you're going to give them to me anyway. Kablam, the black market just got bigger and the police state grew because Anarcho-Capitalism is king.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I get the idea that people (even me) have a cartoonish idea of what the libertarian "free market" concept is, but, if its NOT basically "free market Darwinism" then then I don't see it as being much different than just a milder version of what we already have. Most other countries wouldn't define american as anything other than a "capitalist" that is "free market" state. Its almost a model of the free market at work. Even religion has thrived here more than in other places due to its de-centralized "free market religion" system that we have. (as opposed to say England which has a state-sanctioned religion, and the effect of this is that christanity is nearly dead there, as counter intuitive to most ears as that sounds.)

For environment issues, it works and works well.

Lets say you and I have property that boarders each other. You decide that you want to clear cut and herbicide every square inch of you property. Libertarianism only says that that is OK to those who don't think. You have to look at how that behavior will effect my property. Will your herbicides leach onto my property and destroy my plants and poison my water supply? Will the bare soil lead to erosion that start attacking my property because it starts exposing the roots of my plants and kills them? You could possibly even pose a mud slide risk wiping out my home.

Libertarianism isn't about selfishness, it is about personal responsibility, and you number one responsibility is to insure you don't infringe upon the Liberties of another without their consent.

I think this works just fine, exactly stated here. But what is true in the micro (this) is not true in the macro. Large operations, not vetted by governmental bodies which do the vast majority of the "damage" do so because they do not bother to self police their 100,000 acre sprawling , earth, cracking, water table contaminating monstrosities unless something with real muscle has oversight over it, and that wont be the neighboring little town that is just barely making it as it is and might actually welcome the monster with open arms as it means jobs, never mind the long term time bomb. Only if it impacts the bottom line will megacorp care, and , even then, if it doesn't affect the bottom line for an estimated say, 20 years, or until they get caught... screw it, the profit to risk ratio is worth the risk.

Now we could say well, the libertarian platform wouldn't allow this either, as even megacorp counts as "your neigbor" and as such would fall under some sort of regulation/oversight (which I'm not sure what that would be since the role of government in the libertarian world does not include this sort of "intrusion" into the market) but then , seems like its just business as usual, not really libertarian at all. This sort of system is already in place. The market isnt sorting anything out here, the usual quasi free market / socialist system that already exists does this.

See when most people who don't understand the nuances hear free market they picture what turns out to be Anarcho-Capitalism.

Well I can't say I've broken it down into sub-groups in my mind, I forgot anything that discussed this in Economics, i thin in terms of:

Free Market Economy

Social Market Economy

Cooperative Markets

All of which I guess are "types of free markets". But , I do assume "wild west style Free Market when libertarians say "free market". If the market is (eventually) always right, then if monopolies (eventually) become politically unpopular to the point that they stop being the most profitable form of business, they they will should, so the idea goes, break up of their own accord, generally speaking they wont, as free markets don't apply to them once the reach a certian power level, they'll just self-perpetuate actually making the market less efficient. As soon as we start mixing and matching , I don't think we are really talking about old-school free markets anymore.

Although I do wish there was more lets call it "free market Darwinism" in our system(s) if we keep propping up crappy structures, we'll never become more efficient. Hell I'm even in favor of some sort of pro-active market euthanasia in spirit (although how it would actually work I have no clue).

Say did you know that the number 1 legal obligation of all corporations is to profit? Yeah, that's what I said legal obligation. If I was legally obligated to profit, you better bet your ass I would violate other laws if the profit margin would acquire me 1 more cent than the fine that got levied. Add in the fact that the antitrust laws for all intents and purposes don't exist anymore and the boot straps have been effectively cut off of the 99.5%.

But , at least in my mind, if we are going to put stronger anti-trust laws back in place, we are defeating the libertarian concept. Or at least what I assume it is, once we start again, mixing in regulations and such into the market, I don't think we are really talking about true "free markets" anymore.

I can agree that socialism has its place, but only for those who volunteer.

This would just be philanthropy i think, not socialism. (I'm actually in favor of a less socialized system and have been for ages, at least at my current level of understanding, but i have been starting to warm up to socialism in the last few years due to various arguments)

I can be happy with "little" if I don't have to worry about shelter and food so why should I work if you're going to give them to me anyway. Kablam, the black market just got bigger and the police state grew because Anarcho-Capitalism is king.

Yeah and honestly I think a "little" socialism (well BIG actualy if it covers all the basic health needs) but the way it stands right now, our "socialst" aspects, basicly just cover things just enough so as far as I can tell unless you BUST your ass your going to have a hard time "getting out" of the system. Since why go to work for Mc Donalds at 9 bucks an hour when the state is paying you 7 bucks an hour to do nothing. (just plucking these numbers out of the air to make a point)

I think you need to "do socialism" more fully, or , do it VERY sparingly. Not any middle-of-the road. I've yet to read any real studies that show the effects of all the homeless people and broke people going in and out of shelters. This might actually cost us more than socialism does by "damaging" the markets.

[Nymada del Sol]

Really no pure form of government works. Different forms work for different issues.

[Vater Araignee]

vater ===> Troy,

vater====>

Swear to god man it seems like you keep equating Libertarianism with Anarchism.

Troy====>

Honestly I was doing that just for conversation sake. I do realize "real" libertarianism is much more "centrist" than its extreme cartoon version.

Like I said I've been a longtime follower of the movement, not as card-carrying as in years past but I'm about as familiar with it as any "dabbler" is.

god damnit i screwed your post up I'm seriously sorry.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Troy Spiral
FUCK I "replied" to your post by editing it, and can't get it back (vaters actuall reply was much more detailed)

[Nymada del Sol]

Troy,

Swear to god man it seems like you keep equating Libertarianism with Anarchism.

The ultimate goals are to reduce government not eliminate it, and to change it from being an overlord to being a protector without being a nanny.

Lets look at corporations.

First, remove its legal requirement to profit.

I cant even begin to describe what should have been done to the people who decided it was a good idea.

Second, stop recognizing ANYTHING that is not a person as such.

This will stop protecting the decision makers from their bad/illegal ideas.

Third, make monopolies illegal again.

Truth is that a monopoly is anti-free market and anti-liberty. If Nintendo acquires all of the competition, they have effectually removed your right to buy another companies product. Some argue that this would stifle creating new products, but they are full of it. How many times have we witnessed a unique product entering the market just to see a half dozen knockoffs and new methods hit the market a year later because something was significantly changed or someone build something completely different to accomplish the same task?

Fourth, make it illegal for a person who worked for a business in a field to enter a regulatory position concerning said field. That way you don't have Monsanto executives working in an agency responsible for food safety or environmental safety.

Fifth, government subsidies become illegal. No bailouts, no tax breaks, not a single dime from government unless...

Sixth, require bid contracts for every government need outside of man power. It insures that that the government wont be over paying for substandard products and eliminates the wink and nod pay off.

Volunteer socialism is different from philanthropy.

You either decide to be involved in the system or you are excluded from it. Lets say you turn 18, you get a base year to decide.

Lets assume you do decide to participate, that's the end of it, no going back.

If you decide not to participate, but you want in at some point in the future, then you will need to be employed and paying into the system for a minimum of 6 months before you are in and once you are, in you are in.

Point is, once you decide you want in, you will be paying those taxes for the rest of your life and if the system becomes over burdened then only those who choose to except the burden will receive an increase in the burden.

Health care.

Bring back the Hippocratic oath and of course legal ramification for violating it, sans contracts between individuals.

This will stop doctors from performing procedures that aren't in the patents best interest. It also allows a patent to receive an experimental procedure without holding the doctor responsible. How many people dies because they couldn't get a known procedure who wouldn't have if the had survived long enough to receive it?

Require anyone who does anything in the medical industry to take and be held by the Hippocratic oath. This would stop big pharma from knowingly killing thousands to make a buck.

Allow alternative medicines. My son was diagnosed with not just ADHD but Extreme ADHD. I read the inserts and did the research on the prescriptions I even took them myself, there was no way in hell I was going to poison my boy. During the period where I was changing his diet to reduce the symptoms the fucking school called CPS on us for refusing to medicate him. CPS got a resounding "FUCK OFF AND DIE!" I mean it, when they came to my door and explained why they where there that is the last thing I said to them. Now my sons symptoms are reduced, the school board understands I know my rights and my sons therapist was so surprised by his change that she is studding nutritional therapy and homeopathy. Is he cured? No. Is he manageable? Yes, and with his mothers family history he doesn't further increase his chances of dieing from heart problem because big pharmas motto "Mask symptoms, not cure. We make more that way."

Makes sense so far, what you are saying. My ears are open.

[Class-Punk]

Require anyone who does anything in the medical industry to take and be held by the Hippocratic oath. This would stop big pharma from knowingly killing thousands to make a buck.

Allow alternative medicines. My son was diagnosed with not just ADHD but Extreme ADHD. I read the inserts and did the research on the prescriptions I even took them myself, there was no way in hell I was going to poison my boy. During the period where I was changing his diet to reduce the symptoms the fucking school called CPS on us for refusing to medicate him. CPS got a resounding "FUCK OFF AND DIE!" I mean it, when they came to my door and explained why they where there that is the last thing I said to them. Now my sons symptoms are reduced, the school board understands I know my rights and my sons therapist was so surprised by his change that she is studding nutritional therapy and homeopathy. Is he cured? No. Is he manageable? Yes, and with his mothers family history he doesn't further increase his chances of dieing from heart problem because big pharmas motto "Mask symptoms, not cure. We make more that way."

Alternative medicine deserves more promotion, use, and Scientific study; and the drug companies deserve factual smear campaigns and laws to teach them ethics.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Coffeenated

[LadyKay]

Yeah, thats's me! I have thought this way long before I even knew that I was a Libertarian.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Yeah, thats's me! I have thought this way long before I even knew that I was a Libertarian.

I'd guess 75% of the people I know would tend toward libertarianism if they knew what it was. I think it just the name that makes some people confused.

Although some would freak out about specific aspects of it (strict church-state separation, non-human animals aren't even remotely like people, (seeming) support for unscientific health claims etc, huge cuts in welfare & virtually all state programs, including sacred cows such as social security and the military. just as some examples that might upset)

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Alternative medicine deserves more promotion, use, and Scientific study; and the drug companies deserve factual smear campaigns and laws to teach them ethics.

Deserves more study, I wouldn't push anything that has (currently) so little studies (anecdotes are easily confused and inaccurate , often dangerous). But, it doesnt get the studies. (its such a broad term it in cludes a lot of total quackery along with some probably VERY legitimate stuff, so it needs to be actually vetted by the scientific community to seperate the wheat from the chaff (and theres a ton of chaff))

[Nymada del Sol]

I'd guess 75% of the people I know would tend toward libertarianism if they knew what it was. I think it just the name that makes some people confused.

Although some would freak out about specific aspects of it (strict church-state separation, non-human animals aren't even remotely like people, (seeming) support for unscientific health claims etc, huge cuts in welfare (and associated programs) just as some examples that might upset) Not that any of this bothers me.

Social programs are needed for the people. I like certain parts of Libertarianism, but hate the social Darwinian aspects of it. "Fend for yourself" Humans are pack animals, it's within our best interest to help others. It's a part of our genetic code.

Besides I think any form of pure government is poisonous.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Social programs are needed for the people. I like certain parts of Libertarianism, but hate the social Darwinian aspects of it. "Fend for yourself" Humans are pack animals, it's within our best interest to help others. It's a part of our genetic code.

Besides I think any form of pure government is poisonous.

Almost everything being voluntary is a hard road to navigate (the key goal here being individual freedom). Hypothetically there WILL be social supports, but in actual practice the with number (and types of people) that will buy-in, I'm doubtful would will work properly. That is , people that don't think they'll need it, don't buy in, and people that do need it buy in, and poof, expensive as heck (which, if you cant afford it, then the libertarian concept says there is a reason for that.. ahem). These sorts of things only work in massive numbers. Insurance companies know this like the back of their hand , thus the reason individual(and high risk group) coverage is so expensive (and thus the seemingly unconstitutional individual mandate currently underway). But this is starting to assume socialism is the way to go again.

I'm open to giving it a try, as there is no way "the whole package" will ever sell, it will be piecemeal so there will be time to decide en-route if its working or not.

[Nymada del Sol]

Almost everything being voluntary is a hard road to navigate (the key goal here being individual freedom). Hypothetically there WILL be social supports, but in actual practice the with number (and types of people) that will buy-in, I'm doubtful would will work properly. That is , people that don't think they'll need it, don't buy in, and people that do need it buy in, and poof, expensive as heck (which, if you cant afford it, then the libertarian concept says there is a reason for that.. ahem). These sorts of things only work in massive numbers. Insurance companies know this like the back of their hand , thus the reason individual(and high risk group) coverage is so expensive (and thus the seemingly unconstitutional individual mandate currently underway). But this is starting to assume socialism is the way to go again.

I'm open to giving it a try, as there is no way "the whole package" will ever sell, it will be piecemeal so there will be time to decide en-route if its working or not.

Not as expensive as the war. Stop the wars and bam! There's the funding needed to help people.

http://costofwar.com/en/

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Not as expensive as the war. Stop the wars and bam! There's the funding needed to help people.

http://costofwar.com/en/

Bad! That's funding that we as individuals get to keep, not , the government gets to shift to others. Pesky socialist! (teasing)

The sacred cows of social security and the military shall not be infringed. Almost unassailable (politically that is) institutions.

(Social Security is usually put at 20% , medicare/medicaid 20% and the military 20%) We do spend a TON of money on social programs, they just aren't as efficient as we'd like.

The fucked part I think is Science/Tech/medical research (non-military) is (less than) TWO PERCENT ....grrr. The only way we are going to maintain our economic position in the world is via science/tech/medical advances. Sure are not going to do it on work ethics or population.

[Nymada del Sol]

Bad! That's funding that we as individuals get to keep, not , the government gets to shift to others. Pesky socialist! (teasing)

The sacred cows of social security and the military shall not be infringed. Almost unassailable (politically that is) institutions.

I see nothing wrong with helping the needy. America is supposed to be a melting pot, of people who stand together and help their neighbors. In reality, we are a nation of selfish assholes and greedy misers, worshiping the almighty dollar and our self interest and not compassion and empathy. Only in America, will you see a case of someone bleeding to death on the sidewalk and everyone walks over them. It's the greed and self interest that has poisoned this country.

The reason minority rights in this nation being attacked constantly and not a law of the land is because people at large are sociopathic, hedonistic and self centered. They do not care about things that do no benefit them, nor do they care about the people who are different from them. These people would rather try to destroy someone and oppress them because they cannot be assed to consider others.

The fact that civil rights are up for vote are a testament to the self centeredness of the average American.

I love the liberty that Libertarianism stands for, but I see it's favoring of cutthroat capitalism and selfish interest as a major flaw.

Americans value money over all. Compassion, love, empathy, good will. It all takes a back seat to capital in the eyes of the average American. And the Social Darwinism aspects of Libertarianism will kick that into overdrive.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Nymada del Sol

[Vater Araignee]

In reality, we are a nation of selfish assholes and greedy misers, worshiping the almighty dollar and our self interest and not compassion and empathy.

Really? Then I must be dead a dead man typing. I must be imagining what my community did for me and my family without government interference.

I don't belong to a church so it can't be blamed on a small group of people I knew well.

It is because you get what you give. Every community I have lived in I have volunteered in and this one was no different.

People want to help those who help and those who are physically or mentally incapable of helping themselves.

If I didn't have to pay for some bitch who has another kid before the money runs out (yes I know several who do it) who take their kids to Disney every couple years on the taxpayers dime, then I would have more I could put into the betterment of my community.

You have to fix your house before you worry about you neighbors, you have to fix your neighborhood before you worry about the next one over, your town, county then state.

There is nothing wrong with helping the needy, it is forcing someone to help that is wrong.

I have traveled a lot so that I could find out exactly how different people where in this country and I have seen how groups with the same name differ except one.

The group that screams we need to tax everyone to take care of everyone is typically the first to refuse to donate and volunteer locally.

Oh no, don't buy that little kid a jacket, that's what tax dollars are for.

Oh no, don't help that bum, donate to a national organization that will only use 15% of its intake to "help" people.

Look at Bloomberg, spent most of his life as a Dem and now it is illegal to give food to the homeless. Even most shit bag Reps pale at the thought.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I think there are a large body of people that might be INCLINED to "help others" but if it is inconvenient or an obvious "bill" that they get , they just wont do it. If its a automatic thing, done by the government then it gets done (or at least thats the idea). Its a hard deal. Especially since many of the people that need the help are "out of sight out of mind" living in areas were the people that can afford to help, don't see them.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I see nothing wrong with helping the needy. America is supposed to be a melting pot, of people who stand together and help their neighbors. In reality, we are a ...............

Well of course. But the idea here is that you shouldn't be "compelled" to do this, but can do what you want with "your" money, not , the government takes your money, and then they decide who to give it to. You give it to specific programs or people that you want to give it too. (I'm not totally on board with this idea anymore, just playing devils advocate here)

[Nymada del Sol]

http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/

Over and over, Vohs has found that money can make people antisocial. She primes subjects by seating them near a screen-saver showing currency floating like fish in a tank or asking them to descramble sentences, some of which include words like bill, check, or cash. Then she tests their sensitivity to other people. In her Science article, Vohs showed that money-primed subjects gave less time to a colleague in need of assistance and less money to a hypothetical charity. When asked to pull up a chair so a stranger might join a meeting, money-primed subjects placed the chair at a greater distance from themselves than those in a control group. When asked how they’d prefer to spend their leisure time, money-primed people chose a personal cooking lesson over a ­catered group dinner. Given a choice ­between working collaboratively or alone, they opted to go solo. Vohs even found that money-primed people described feeling less emotional and physical pain: They can keep their hand under burning-hot water longer and feel less emotional distress when excluded from a ball-tossing game. ­“Money,” says Vohs, “brings you into ­functionality mode. When that gets applied to other people, things get mucked up. You can get things done, but it does come at the expense of people’s feelings or caring about them as individuals.”

[Vater Araignee]

http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/

Over and over, Vohs has found that money can make people antisocial. She primes subjects by seating them near a screen-saver showing currency floating like fish in a tank or asking them to descramble sentences, some of which include words like bill, check, or cash. Then she tests their sensitivity to other people. In her Science article, Vohs showed that money-primed subjects gave less time to a colleague in need of assistance and less money to a hypothetical charity. When asked to pull up a chair so a stranger might join a meeting, money-primed subjects placed the chair at a greater distance from themselves than those in a control group. When asked how they’d prefer to spend their leisure time, money-primed people chose a personal cooking lesson over a ­catered group dinner. Given a choice ­between working collaboratively or alone, they opted to go solo. Vohs even found that money-primed people described feeling less emotional and physical pain: They can keep their hand under burning-hot water longer and feel less emotional distress when excluded from a ball-tossing game. ­“Money,” says Vohs, “brings you into ­functionality mode. When that gets applied to other people, things get mucked up. You can get things done, but it does come at the expense of people’s feelings or caring about them as individuals.”

I would have to see all of Vohs data before I take the word of someone writing an article.

You know haw many time a reporter only read the abstract and introduction then proceeded to write about some minor miracle when if the read the entire procedure it would have turned out to be bull?

I wont give a hypothetical dime to a hypothetical charity.

I would also like to see pictures of the people used to join. I'll admit I can be superficial.

I can tell you that if given the choice between cooking lessons and a catered meal I'll take the lessons every time because it is better to be able to cook for others than it is to be a richy bitch and pay someone to do it for me. It also happens that every catered event I have been to, the food was bland.

Anything I know I can do alone will get done alone so there is zero chance of having someone else to blame.

I would fail the hot water test, but that's because I'm a welder.

Iz gives no crap about ball games. To me they are part of the modern Bread and Circuses.

Now lets assume zero subjectivity.

How many times has the test been repeated?

How many people have participated?

How was it decided who went into what group?

Did they take anyone from the control group and attempt to prime them? If so, to what result?

I've been suckered by many a scientific claim only to find out the methods used where terribly fallible, evidence to the contrary was excluded, doctored, guided or combinations.

Remember some basic facts.

Bloodletting was once PROVEN to cure most illnesses.

It was PROVEN the sun went around the earth.

It was PROVEN that the Earth followed a perfectly circular trajectory around the sun.

How about this speach?

"Today we have more information and knowledge about the cure and prevention of disease than ever before in the history of mankind. The advancements that have been made in just the last few years have given us new insights about the treatment and prevention of virtually all illness and disease, making it safe to reach two major conclusions:

1. Even though just ten years ago we thought we knew the proper treatments of illness, we now know just how little we knew back then.

2. With these revolutionary breakthroughs in technology, virtually all illness and disease should be wiped out in America within the next ten years.We are on the verge of entering a phase where a person will never be sick. And if you do get sick, your doctor will be able to cure you of your illness in a matter of days. We have virtually reached the pinnacle of medical knowledge."

That was a speech from 1902.

[Nymada del Sol]

I would have to see all of Vohs data before I take the word of someone writing an article.

You know haw many time a reporter only read the abstract and introduction then proceeded to write about some minor miracle when if the read the entire procedure it would have turned out to be bull?

I wont give a hypothetical dime to a hypothetical charity.

I would also like to see pictures of the people used to join. I'll admit I can be superficial.

I can tell you that if given the choice between cooking lessons and a catered meal I'll take the lessons every time because it is better to be able to cook for others than it is to be a richy bitch and pay someone to do it for me. It also happens that every catered event I have been to, the food was bland.

Anything I know I can do alone will get done alone so there is zero chance of having someone else to blame.

I would fail the hot water test, but that's because I'm a welder.

Iz gives no crap about ball games. To me they are part of the modern Bread and Circuses.

Now lets assume zero subjectivity.

How many times has the test been repeated?

How many people have participated?

How was it decided who went into what group?

Did they take anyone from the control group and attempt to prime them? If so, to what result?

I've been suckered by many a scientific claim only to find out the methods used where terribly fallible, evidence to the contrary was excluded, doctored, guided or combinations.

Remember some basic facts.

Bloodletting was once PROVEN to cure most illnesses.

It was PROVEN the sun went around the earth.

It was PROVEN that the Earth followed a perfectly circular trajectory around the sun.

How about this speach?

"Today we have more information and knowledge about the cure and prevention of disease than ever before in the history of mankind. The advancements that have been made in just the last few years have given us new insights about the treatment and prevention of virtually all illness and disease, making it safe to reach two major conclusions:

1. Even though just ten years ago we thought we knew the proper treatments of illness, we now know just how little we knew back then.

2. With these revolutionary breakthroughs in technology, virtually all illness and disease should be wiped out in America within the next ten years.We are on the verge of entering a phase where a person will never be sick. And if you do get sick, your doctor will be able to cure you of your illness in a matter of days. We have virtually reached the pinnacle of medical knowledge."

That was a speech from 1902.

It is plain to see. The megacorps are the ones running sweatshops the world around. They are the ones peddling high fructose corn syrup even tho it's be proven to be harmful to the human body and addictive.

You have a habit of rejecting anything you don't agree with I've noticed, even if backed by science.

[torn asunder]

They are the ones peddling high fructose corn syrup even tho it's be proven to be harmful to the human body and addictive.

(From wikipedia...) "The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose", which means that for 10g of HFCS 55, 5.5g are fructose and 4.2g are glucose, and the rest (likely) is 0.3g sucrose. An apple has 5.9g of fructose, 2.4g glucose, and 2.1g sucrose.

If you look closely, there is actually a higher percentage of fructose in an apple than there is in HFCS. Why the fuck is everyone so uptight about this subject?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

(From wikipedia...) "The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose", which means that for 10g of HFCS 55, 5.5g are fructose and 4.2g are glucose, and the rest (likely) is 0.3g sucrose. An apple has 5.9g of fructose, 2.4g glucose, and 2.1g sucrose.

If you look closely, there is actually a higher percentage of fructose in an apple than there is in HFCS. Why the fuck is everyone so uptight about this subject?

Depends on who your talking about, many people just aren't educated about the subject and assume anything processed is automaticly bad, in all cases. Although in the case of HFCS I was under the impression that it was just the total amount of HFCS that is pumped into everything that was the problem , rather than just its existence. Its easy (and cheap) to dump massive of empty sugar calories into things with it. True most everything I've read leans toward the idea that "natural" sugar is just as bad for you as HFCS (although there are some studies leaning toward the idea that HFCS itself is worse).

I think the real take away message should be , cut out the sweets period, we (on average) just suck down way too many of them.

I remember in days of yore i was just that people were fooled into thinking it was actually "sugar free" but todays consumer is more well educated. Funny part is they are now re-branding it "Corn Sugar" so it sounds more natural, the exact opposite of the original idea. Not that natural is necessarily good, there is natural poison, and volcanos are natural but people tend to trust the word "natural")

[Nymada del Sol]

The Effects of Capitalism on Society Edited July 7, 2012 by Nymada del Sol