Libertarian Vs. Minarchy Vs. Anarchy by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libertarian Vs. Minarchy Vs. Anarchy

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2022 09:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1192
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, September 26, 2008 4:08 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This is a discussion that reaches out to the friendly minarchists and anarchists out there, and to any Libertarians as well. I know Frem counts himself in one of these categories, as do online debating friends who have referred me to enlightening online articles and political comics.

I have spent most of my political life registered Independent. I have frequently (though not always) voted Republican, because some of their stated ideals had overlap with my private ideals. Lately, though, it has become apparent that Republican performance has strayed far from supposed Republican values.

As an Independent, my personal value system rides close to the Libertarian ideal, and I have supported Libertarian causes and politicians from time to time. This year, after changing affiliation briefly to Republican to support Ron Paul, I decided to move from "Undeclared" or "Independent" firmly into the Libertarian camp.

I'd say that the Libertarians and I agree on about 80% of everything, and that's a lot to have in common with any political party. When I scrape up the dough, I actually intend to pay dues to support the organization. (I had never invested my green into any political party before this year. That was for Ron Paul. As events continue to upset me in this nation, my interest in 'more than words' support is heightened.)

Now after this lengthy preamble, I come to the point of this post.

I am interested in reaching out to Anarchist and Minarchist brothers and sisters to find out how your philosophies differ from the Libertarian ideal. Also Piratenews, (God help me) I'm interested in your own political views, and how they relate to the Libertarians, Anarchists, or Minarchists. Finally, I'd love to hear from Libertarians who want to speak about the party.

For reference, I include the Libertarian platform after my signature.

--Anthony

***********************
***********************
***********************

National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado

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

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. 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 rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict 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 of 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 right 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

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, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.

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, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, 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, 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.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

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 abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. 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 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. 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 and its defense against attack from abroad. 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 threat to security, health or property.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, 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.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral 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.

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.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 26, 2008 5:12 PM

SERGEANTX

I was involved with the party pretty heavily through the late eighties and early nineties. Even ran for local office once (county commissioner). But over time I became disillusioned with both the system they were up against, and the party itself. My falling out had nothing to do with their platform or philosophy, but more with the approach and with their willingness to stay on the periphery.

The majority consensus in the party at that time was that our best hope for growing the party lie in reaching out to disaffected Republicans. Even before the Neo-cons took over, I felt that it was a mistake to focus our efforts solely on Republicans. Not only were we missing opportunities to draw independents and Democrats, many in the party were outright derisive toward them.

I found this particularly frustrating because I thought, and still do, that at the core, liberals were more likely to embrace libertarian ideology than conservatives. The reason is that conservatives are, well, conservative. They're leery of radical thinking and in general aren't open minded. Liberals, on the other hand, seem more willing to listen to fringe arguments and frankly, more susceptible to reason. So, even though conservatives agreed with more of our philosophy at the outset, the were less likely to embrace the core values of true libertarianism.

That perception has played out in my personal dealings as well. I've had more luck convincing liberals of logic of fundamental libertarian ideals than I have conservatives. And, as an admittedly biased and personal opinion, I came to see Republican 'libertarians' as little more than conservatives who wanted to seem 'edgy' and didn't want to pay taxes.

I still feel like they keep themselves on the fringe by refusing to reach out to a broader audience. They routinely present the most outrageous seeming aspects of libertarian thinking to people who are first introduced to the concepts. They smugly rebuff the concerns that liberals have for minorities and the underprivileged. They refuse to accept that different people have different concerns and consider it beneath them to repackage their message to address those concerns.

At this point I think that all players not enamored with the Republocrats need to join forces and bust up their fixed game. None of the other parties or independents are going to get anywhere until that happens. After things are opened up, we can engage in real debate with a wide range of candidates and ideas.

That's why I was so pleased to see Ron Paul joining forces with Ralph Nader, The Greens, The Constitution party and the Libertarians to focus on real change. Ron Paul saw first hand how the Libertarian party works against itself and, even though they come the closest to his own political convictions, has distanced himself from their losing ways.

This year's Libertarian candidate is a relatively poor choice in my opinion, though still much better than any other candidates that I know of. Bob Barr has only recently "seen the light". He voted for the Patriot Act, supported the Iraq War and expressed a great many non-libertarian views in the not-so-distant past. He claims to have come full circle and now follows a straight up libertarian line of thinking, but he has yet to convince me. He certainly doesn't have anything like Ron Paul's record to stand on. Furthermore he's been openly resentful of Ron Paul's refusal to sign on as his vice-presidential candidate and of RP' attempts to reach out to the broader third party movement.

If I was going to vote, it would probably be Libertarian. But really, until we can change the way the process runs, there's not much point.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 26, 2008 5:25 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
The majority consensus in the party at that time was that our best hope for growing the party lie in reaching out to disaffected Republicans. Even before the Neo-cons took over, I felt that it was a mistake to focus our efforts solely on Republicans. Not only were we missing opportunities to draw independents and Democrats, many in the party were outright derisive toward them.

I found this particularly frustrating because I thought, and still do, that at the core, liberals were more likely to embrace libertarian ideology than conservatives. The reason is that conservatives are, well, conservative. They're leery of radical thinking and in general aren't open minded. Liberals, on the other hand, seem more willing to listen to fringe arguments and frankly, more susceptible to reason. So, even though conservatives agreed with more of our philosophy at the outset, the were less likely to embrace the core values of true libertarianism.

There ya go. For what it's worth, I tend to vote pretty consistently Democratic, but the Libertarians have got my attention lately.

Don't know if it makes you feel any better, but I'm one person who's somewhat validated your theory.

I've just gotten so frustrated with the status quo that at this point, I'd have to label myself as an "Anti" - whatever party you've got in power, I'm pretty much against them. I'm ready to shake things up, and if that means voting AGAINST the major parties, so be it.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 26, 2008 5:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I am a Kropotkinist, with leanings toward Mutualism in the Contract form.
However, I am not in agreement with socialism as a base model foundation.

Basic Tenets ?

1. I own me, not the State, nor any person or collective thereof - what I do to and for myself is my own business if it has no substantive impact* on another and is therefore beyond the realm and scope of anyone else to interfere with in any way, and to do so constitutes an act of violence against me.

*And I MEAN substantive impact, don't bring in arguements like my presence lessens the available oxygen for others or similar petty ridiculousness.

2. Anything I produce with my own labor and materials belongs to me - I don't care if it's your goddamn design or your patented concept, it's MINE, I built it with my own labor and materials, and what I do with it, up to and including sale is my own right, and nobody is "entitled" to a cut of the production or proceeds because they did not lend their labor or materials to it's construction.

Attempting to collect such by force or coercion is an act of violence against me.

Now, if I CHOOSE to offer a cut in exchange for other services or product, that is wholly MY decision - if I CHOOSE to offer a collective a cut of my income in order to produce and maintain infrastructure, for example, that is operationally under the mutual-contract philosophy.

3. Anything I produce with my own labor and your materials, you owe me a cut of the proceeds relative to how much my labor increased the value of those materials, and to short me on that is both robbery and an act of violence against me.

4. Anything you sell me, that I bought and paid for, I now own - what I do with it, is my business alone, and any attempt to control how I view or use said product is an act of violence against me.

5. I reserve the right to defend myself, my property or respond to acts of violence against me with force, up to and including lethal force if in my sole judgement the situation calls for it, and provided the engagement is between me and those in aggression against me or my property, no one else has the right to intervene barring collateral damage to their property caused by me personally.

In practice, for reasons already expressed, the Libertarian ideal is acceptable so long as the five tenets above are fully respected, cause for a fact humanity as a whole is just not socially, mentally and emotionally adapted well enough to go around removing the structures on which they have based their civilizations.

Perhaps some day, but not this day.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 1, 2022 7:41 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

'I Predicted the Culture Wars Would End in 2021. Oops.'

https://news.yahoo.com/predicted-culture-wars-end-2021-120045615.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2022 10:07 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

So how did Fagboy Fremdfirma turn into the islamist apologist who would make Death Threats to his fellow Americans because they would not vote for Hillary?

Is Cancel Culture Toxic? Intelligence Squared Debate
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/07/19/is_cancel_culture_t
oxic_intelligence_squared_debate.html#!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2022 9:57 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
'I Predicted the Culture Wars Would End in 2021. Oops.'

https://news.yahoo.com/predicted-culture-wars-end-2021-120045615.html

The culture wars will never end until Social Media is destroyed. And that's only going to happen if The People decide they want it outlawed.

Check out the studies on polarization due to the rise of social media. Not only will it never end, but it's only going to get worse.

What a dumb prediction. Read a book.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE