Taking a Closer Look at the Libertarian Party's Website

Some of you may have read my thread from a few days ago regarding modern American libertarianism. I thought I laid out some fair points but 50% of the negative posts accused me of being biased and misrepresenting libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. In the interest of not getting mired in another round of semantics shenanigans, I've decided to spend a few minutes sharing interesting bits of content from the Libertarian Party's website, lp.org, and adding my commentary. All of the following excerpts were taken directly from either the "issues" or "platform" pages and are current as of 5 minutes ago. I originally intended to address all of the listed "issues" but after only this handful, I was already on my third post. If there's interest, I'll follow up with a second topic.. or maybe I will even if there's no interest.

On Foreign Policy

Alas, politicians having motives that aren't always aligned with the public, a return to trade barriers began late in the 19th century, starting in Germany, and as French economist Frederic Bastiat warned, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers may," with the decreasing trade being accompanied by increasing militarism and, ultimately, everyone taking sides in what is now recognized as one of the most pointless conflicts in history, World War I.

That's right folks, the Libertarian Party is telling you that if we don't buy Chinese s# at Wal-mart, the Chinese might invade us. Or are they saying that if Iraq only had more McDonald's restaurants, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq?

Since the end of World War II, there has been a more concerted effort to lower trade barriers throughout the world, although special interests have regularly interfered and turned what should have been simple mutual barrier reductions into complex trade agreements that typically added restrictions as well as removed them.

There's nothing better for manufacturing and agriculture than competition with the third world, right?

Nonetheless, international trade has increased greatly over these decades and both the frequency and destructiveness of wars decreased to the point that the first decade of the 21st century had the fewest war deaths of any decade in the entire post-WWII period.

Wait, didn't they just say that the problem was too much regulation? Oh never mind.

On Immigration

At the same time, the supply of Americans who have traditionally filled many of those jobs — those without a high school diploma — continues to shrink. Their numbers have declined by 4.6 million in the past decade, as the typical American worker becomes older and better educated.

Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration.

In response, we can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We can erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande. We can raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job.

Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.

I actually agreed with most of this until it dawned on me that coupling this with abolition of OSHA, abolition of the NLRB, a gutting of the unions and a the repeal of all labor law, they're actually trying to steer us toward our very own third world style sweat shops.

On the Environment

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.

Seems fair enough, the DoD shouldn't be able to defy the EPA. One of the things that makes "all government" (combined) one of the biggest polluters isn't even mentioned. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a corporation owned by we the people, that supplies power to portions of seven states, operates 11 coal fired plants, 14 dual fuel/natural gas plants and 49 hydroelectric facilities. It's the (distant, #3 produces roughly 50% more) 4th largest emitter of CO2 in the country (source). I'm sure if these were privately owned plants, they'd produce much less pollution than the top 3 CO2 emitters, energy producers American Electric Power, Duke Energy and Southern Company.

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.

What? WHAT? Free markets and property rights are going to stop Georgia Pacific from turning your backyard into a chemical pond because private businesses like Georgia Pacific have such non-terrible track records on pollution? I live in New Jersey, don't tell me that because the EPA has no power over the DoD that we don't need the EPA. Wouldn't the more intelligent solution be to make the DoD equally accountable?

I thought this paragraph was particularly relevant in light of recent developments:

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.

If only Cliven Bundy owned that land, he wouldn't be destroying it and apparently, cows don't do well doing cow things on land that's not privately owned? Well a 1925 study says so!

On Health Insurance

We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers.

F those people with diseases and disabilities — health insurance is for healthy people!

We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

Talk about the fox in the hen house! The FDA is slowing down big pharma with all their safety protocols and demands for things like clinical trials? I thought the LP site would argue that the FDA wasn't doing enough to protect us anyway, but they surprised me by saying that the FDA is doing too much and it's actually KILLING PEOPLE with all of its excessive caution. Obviously, we trust the good folks at big pharma to police themselves...because really, what could possibly go wrong there?

On Health Insurance

We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers.

F those people with diseases and disabilities, health insurance is for healthy people!

We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

Talk about the fox in the hen house! The FDA is just slowing down big pharma with all their demands for safety protocols and clinical trials? I thought they'd argue that the FDA wasn't doing enough, but they surprised me by saying that the FDA is doing too much and it's actually KILLING PEOPLE with all its excessive caution. Obviously, we should trust big pharma to police it's own safety because really, what could go wrong there?

On Social Security

If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

If this sounds familiar, it is, it's the same thing Bush was pushing in 2005. All of the reasons why this was a bad idea in 2005 are still valid now.

Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system. It's time America did as well.

The Chilean system was started in 1981, under Pinochet, in the midst of a historic bull market. It covers about a third less of the population than our Social Security program. In fact, in 2006, only 50% of Chilean workers had coverage. Chile is the only OECD country with greater income inequality than the U.S. (source). The Chilean PAYGO system was such a resounding success that it had to be reformed in 2008 and supplemented with a tax-funded program. (source)

But hey, MEXICO!

I think you are basing your arguments against the wrong party. I believe you mean the Republicans.

Am I wrong?

our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States

Yes, let's destroy our country even faster, because we don't have enough problems already with traffic jams, employment, pollution, affordable housing, ethinc tension, etc.

I think you are basing your arguments against the wrong party. I believe you mean the Republicans.

Modern libertarians ARE Republicans- liberal republicans. There are no real libertarians anymore.

A personal note. I was attending a World Science Fiction Convention once with a gal friend, and we were walking around the hotel after seeing Bob Wilson and Tim Leary on a panel, and came across a room where they were holding the National Nominating Convention of the Libertarian Party. We went in, sat at an empty table, and without knowing anything about the person or their views actually voted for someone to run for Vice President. lol (then and now).

originally posted by: jrflipjr
I think you are basing your arguments against the wrong party. I believe you mean the Republicans.

Am I wrong?

I can't say I fault you for coming to that conclusion, but no.

a reply to: theantediluvian

We do not need the Liberatairan party. We need something completely new, and different.

a reply to: Not Authorized

I agree yet disagree.

We need a complete political overtake of the system. We need to flood the ballots in every state with so many political parties that it makes the establishments head spin.

Start your own party. Organize it, and encourage others to do the same.

a reply to: Chickensalad

We need focus. The Liberatarian party is also part of the problem. Something like a Secular Human Rights and Liberty party would be a good start.

All that needs to be done, is demand the law be followed as it is written.

We need people to wake the **** up and understand the issues - not the latest results of Survivor!

All this talk about one specific party shouldn't be the answer.

In reality, both Democrats and Republicans have pro's and con's. The reason that either party arguably fails at policy or decision making isn't because they don't stand for something, it is because they aren't doing their Constitutional duties as CONgressmen/women to represent their constituents correctly. Instead, they allow lobbyists to seduce them with promises of money or lavish things, and vote based on who supports them the most. Sometimes it is even government officials who do the bribing. This is the problem today just as much as it was in the past.

Libertarians, or the failed excuse of a party they claim to be, are merely people trying to fight the status quo. I am proud of them for that, but wish they would pay attention to what the men from the early 1790's to the mid 1820's fought for. Those men were the true leaders by design. There may have been corruption in those days, but the big banks hadn't sunk their venomous fangs into the neck of CONgress quite yet.

It is very simple yet no one seems to allow it to happen.
Lobbying should be illegal and criminal. It is legalized bribery and they know it. This is a large section of the root of the problem. Without lobbyists paving the way for big corporations to pass bills and actually author laws, we could have a jump start on real change.

Not everyone can turn away lobby money like Ron Paul did right?
If the problem is that CONgressmen/women won't refuse lobbyist's money on their own, then they should be fined or even fired. The root problem is the people themselves. Lobbyist's only succeed when people accept the money.

a reply to: havok

I agree with much of what you've said. The motivation for starting these last two threads was seeing threads with titles like "Vote Libertarian or we're done for!" Unlike the Republicans and Democrats, the LP seems to have an active cheering section on ATS and I often see people suggesting that the LP is a solution for the problems stemming from our current two party system. I disagree with that notion and I also don't think the LP platform is particularly viable or for that matter, desirable.

As to your comment about lobbying — I don't know that I'd agree that Ron Paul turns away a lot of money but I do agree that lobbying as an industry is absurd, corrupt and what started as an individual's right to petition the government has been twisted into a vehicle for those who can afford it to exert undue influence over our politicians. To me it all relates to the asinine concept, often expressed (usually derisively) as "corporations are people too," promoted by the LP, SCOTUS (Citizen's United vs FEC), etc.

i wonder when people will realize that no matter what party or ideology they follow, it will be corrupted and exploited for gain. the ones who hold power with their money have put themselves in a position that will never be shaken unless the global economy completely collapses, because modern times aren't like the 18th century where many still had freedom to act without constantly being watched or manipulated by pretty words, sex, luxuries, etc.
in today's world the west has become weak, greedy, selfish, arrogant and spoiled, they lack understanding of what freedom actually is and have lost control of themselves due to all the excess in their daily lives.

freedom won't ever come back no matter what ideology you follow. only mass collapse, death, destruction and rebirth will be able to save us from the grip of the corrupt system, of our own creation(by inaction and selfishness); we find ourselves being strangled by.

no political party or ideology will save anyone until the root of corruption is destroyed.

I don't agree with everything on the libertarian platform, some of it particularly the education portion is a bit extreme even to me, but as far as the basic concept, more freedoms less government I'm all for that. Its not exactly republican btw, thanks to Ron Paul you have more republican sympathisers. I don't see the republican party wanting to end the war on drugs completely or open our borders for instance. But anyway, in reply to the last few posts, YES lobbying should be illegal as hell, in fact if I had my druthers forming political parties would be as well. To me both are counterproductive to the democratic process, because it becomes less about good ideas, and more about power plays. The major issue is you now have career politicians - a ruling class. Our forefathers have got to be rolling in their graves.