The Libertarian Party, Replacing the Republicans

[The silenced majority]

What is the Libertarian party's position regarding our theocratic (in it's truest sense) government?

 

[nerv14]

Holy cow, I agree with Nerv14 on something... amazing.

You need to be right some of the time... jk, jk...

I'd like something to back that up, please... I find it hard to credit Jefferson as a "small gov socialist".

G.

I am taking a political ideology class in college where you look at texts that people like Locke, Marx ect actually wrote. I have a text sunday, so this can help me study... Some of this won't specifically relate... but all of it will at least slightly.

I will admit that I said "socialist" just to get people's attention, but my point is that he certainly isn't a libertarian in the sense of strong principles for property rights, or only mininum collective society influence over issues. His emphysis is what is best for the society and for all, not the individual. Therefore, he would support many wealth distribution and other policies on the local level.


Firstly, he didn't believe that private property was a right, he believes something simillar to me, in that private property should almost always be upheld, but that is for economic reasons.

He says "god forbid we should evere be 20 years without such a rebellion"

My text says specifically, and you can see from the quote that every 20 years a new government should be established in America with new laws. Therefore, property or any other idea can not be set in stone.

He says that policies can't "rule from the grave" which is distinctly different from Madison who wanted restrictions on what types of new legislation could be passed. (enumereted rights)

Jefferson believed in direct democracy, where popular sentiments of the people could be expressed, which can be majoritarian sentiments (populist). Madison was for representive government of course to control the foolish ideas of the masses.

Finally, Jefferson believed in a society where everyone had land to live off of their own, specifically to allow them to be self sufficent. Those people would be self sufficent from the government and from having to work for others.
To accomplish this, people would need to take land for themselves, or they would need to be given it from the government.

For my midterm, there was a quote by Jefferson about the importance of land ownership to make people independent. I don't have that specific quote now though.

I am dissapointed that my text book doesn't have a direct quote about this, even though it does desribe it.

>>>>>>>>>>>.

Also, John Locke belives that "life, liberty and estate" should be upheld. However, Jefferson believes in "life, liberty and happiness" with happiness beieng the ultimate goal of mankind.

Therefore according to him, "I am conscious that an equal division of property is impractical. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind."

That is one of his most direct statements about the role of the government to redistribute wealth.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Unlike libertarians who use reason formost to validate their policies, Jefferson has a more emotional responce that you may except from populists. Its very simillar to Rousseau.
Jefferson says that he bases his political views on his "moral sense" which gets rid of the complete independence in libertarians today.
Therefore, property rights are a mean to an end of happiness, but it is what is "morally just" that should be followed primarily.

Jefferson believes in mob democracy where people's morals guilde decisions. "why should not the morality of one undred men produce a just line of conduct in them, acting together?"

>>>>>>>>>

Jefferson also believes that "It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. The savages therefore break them into small ones."
He believes this because those Native American groups avoid the problems with a larger society and the competition in them, by having smaller societies. He believes that semi-anarchist communal societies are the best.

So he is more of the small-community communists who are distrustful of large government, as in large government that is based far away. He does believe in strong communal laws and customs on the local level though.

 

[Goshin]

This is a new one on me, nerve14. Jefferson as some sort of socialist who favored redistribution of wealth is a viewpoint I've never come across before.

Frankly, offhand, it sounds like a leftist-academia reinterpretation of the historical Jefferson. There's been a lot of that going on in the past twenty years, in an attempt to portray the Founders in a leftist light, or else discredit them entirely.

If I can ever find the time I'll have to look into this, but considering all the other Jeffersonian literature I've read over the years, this interpretation does not sound like the man who I've always respected and whose words I've studied.

G.

 

[Goshin]

What is the Libertarian party's position regarding our theocratic (in it's truest sense) government?

If you'd explain why you think the gov't is theocratic, maybe someone could answer the question.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So easy for you to accept that premise and move on to your Libertarian utopia. Here are the facts:

35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America, including 12.9 million children

11% of Americans are unable to provide their families with sufficient food

As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week. One out of four homeless are military veterans

16% of Americans - 45 million people - cannot afford health insurance.

I could spend the rest of the day listing facts to dispute your assertion that "that pool of individuals is rather small". The inability of Libertarians to acknowledge serious social discrepancies such as these are the reason Libertarianism cannot be taken seriously.




Some Statistics on Poverty in America
Homelessness in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FASTSTATS - Health Insurance Coverage

I'm trying to be nice and actually engage you in a discussion so lets try and keep it that way.

What Goshin said sums up what I believe more or less.

I won't dispute the accuracy of the statistics, but rather the analysis, labeling and conclusions of same.

"The poor" in America, are approximately as well off as the "lower middle class" in most 3rd World countries.
"The poor" are not a fixed class of people who all remain poor all their lives. A lot of them are "poor" for a period of time, then eventually become prosperous through improving their marketable skills or just working at the same factory long enough to get seniority-level pay. I was "poor" in my 20's and early 30's, but worked hard and became reasonably prosperous since then.
Many of those who "can't afford insurance" actually could if they really wanted to... but they don't think they need it bad enough to shell out the money. 20-somethings being a substantial part of that group... they don't think they're likely to need it. When they realize they need it, they'll get it. I did this myself, and have known many other people who did also.
Many of those who are chronically "poor" or claim they "can't feed their family" are not "The poor" simply because they don't make money. A lot of them spend their cash on drugs, booze, gambling, and BS... and if they had any drive or sense they could lift themselves out of being "poor".
Those who are really and truly poor, in the USA, through no fault of their own, and truly lack the means to work their way out of poverty, are probably a VERY small percentile... like two or three percent. I may do some research on this and seek verifiable stats to prove it, but I'm pretty sure it is so on the basis of 40+ years of life experience, and having been poor when I was younger.

When you give a man who is capable of working a handout, you take away his dignity and his incentive to better his condition.

Widows, orphans, the elderly who have no family to take care of them, the mentally handicapped...these are really the ones who may need some help.

G.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This is a new one on me, nerve14. Jefferson as some sort of socialist who favored redistribution of wealth is a viewpoint I've never come across before.

Frankly, offhand, it sounds like a leftist-academia reinterpretation of the historical Jefferson. There's been a lot of that going on in the past twenty years, in an attempt to portray the Founders in a leftist light, or else discredit them entirely.

If I can ever find the time I'll have to look into this, but considering all the other Jeffersonian literature I've read over the years, this interpretation does not sound like the man who I've always respected and whose words I've studied.

G.

I've got a Jefferson biography that I need to finish but that is hardly what the truth was.

Jefferson was a renaissance man the likes we haven't seen in quite some time.
His personal moral struggles made him a very real, honorable person.

A lot of people try to discredit them with the "they were slave holders" line.
That is weakness at its best.

 

[Polynikes]

If you think that I was implying that they are mindless drones you are incorrect.

Milgrims experiment has shown that, with no training or conditioning, people are more inclined to obey authority as it is. .

I do not think you are saying that the military is full of mindless drones, I said it is a common misperception you run into amongst the public. I respect your positions on a variety of issues and know you think more rationally then to have a thought like this.

I also agree with the Milgrams analogy. However, I think it applies better in a situation of someone taking leadership over an angry mob and whipping them into a furor. There are some people who can take to a podium with like minded people around them and get those people so riled up they will commit acts of violence at the speaker's orders.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I do not think you are saying that the military is full of mindless drones, I said it is a common misperception you run into amongst the public. I respect your positions on a variety of issues and know you think more rationally then to have a thought like this.

:cheers: Thanks.

I also agree with the Milgrams analogy. However, I think it applies better in a situation of someone taking leadership over an angry mob and whipping them into a furor. There are some people who can take to a podium with like minded people around them and get those people so riled up they will commit acts of violence at the speaker's orders.

I agree with this as well.

There is another study I've seen before called the Stanford Prison Experiment.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment]Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Its very disturbing what people will do once they have a role of authority.
There are some things with the Standford experiment that may skew the results a bit but overall I think it presents a valid argument.

 

[Ethereal]

While the ideology of the Founding Fathers resembled Libertarianism in principle, it was driven by the search for the "common good", a concept missing from Libertarianism, whose creed could be better expressed as "every man for himself".

This is overly simplistic. The "common good" is a vague and nebulous term that can mean almost anything and be interpreted differently by anyone. Your idea of the "common good" is, in all likelihood, very different from that of the Founding Fathers. They believed the common good was best achieved through protecting individual liberty and promoting self-reliance - the same as libertarians.

Leftists, on the other hand, view the common good in an entirely different manner. Their idea of the common good is predicated on class warfare, the redistribution of wealth, and statism. All of these are in diametric opposition to the ideology of our Founders.

You're in no position to speak intelligently about libertarianism or how it applies to the Founding Fathers because you understand neither.

 

[nerv14]

This is a new one on me, nerve14. Jefferson as some sort of socialist who favored redistribution of wealth is a viewpoint I've never come across before.

Frankly, offhand, it sounds like a leftist-academia reinterpretation of the historical Jefferson. There's been a lot of that going on in the past twenty years, in an attempt to portray the Founders in a leftist light, or else discredit them entirely.

If I can ever find the time I'll have to look into this, but considering all the other Jeffersonian literature I've read over the years, this interpretation does not sound like the man who I've always respected and whose words I've studied.

G.

I thought that for some time because my professor is a typical left wing professor, but that is why I have quotes from Jeffereson. So you can't really refutte those, because they are direct.

Remember, it is just not left wing groups that try to portray Jeffereson in an incorrect certain light to suit their views, but libertarians and conservatives.

 

[Goshin]

I thought that for some time because my professor is a typical left wing professor, but that is why I have quotes from Jeffereson. So you can't really refutte those, because they are direct.

Remember, it is just not left wing groups that try to portray Jeffereson in an incorrect certain light to suit their views, but libertarians and conservatives.

Being able to pull a few Jefferson quotes that seem to support leftist redistributionism does not change the totality of Jefferson's written works, which do not appear to support socialism imo.

I will have to look into this (if I can find the time), because I definately smell a rat somewhere. I suspect out-of-context cherry-picking is involved.

May have to revisit this issue later.

G.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Being able to pull a few Jefferson quotes that seem to support leftist redistributionism does not change the totality of Jefferson's written works, which do not appear to support socialism imo.

I will have to look into this (if I can find the time), because I definately smell a rat somewhere. I suspect out-of-context cherry-picking is involved.

May have to revisit this issue later.

G.

I honestly don't think there is much to resolve.

The Declaration of Independence as well as his stance as an anti federalist should be enough to support the argument.

He hated statism and large government. The quote in my sig from him can support the argument very well.

 

[nerv14]

I said in my post that he isn't a real socialist, because he is against large governments.
However, he is more of those small gov communal society politicians.
You don't need a large government to redistribute wealth.

Its alright, I can imagine people have trouble hearing this

He isn't nearly as left as Marx or Lennin, but Jefferson was still the most "left" president we have ever had. (beyond Obama!) I consider left/right to not be related directly to the size of government, more like the overall focus of society. But of course, that is why the whole left/right spectrum doesn't mean very much on its own.

I swear that I am not trying to take anything that he said out of context. I even left out many radical things that my book claims that he said, but there is no direct evidence.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I said in my post that he isn't a real socialist, because he is against large governments.
However, he is more of those small gov communal society politicians.
You don't need a large government to redistribute wealth.

Its alright, I can imagine people have trouble hearing this

He isn't nearly as left as Marx or Lennin, but Jefferson was still the most "left" president we have ever had. (beyond Obama!) But of course, the whole left/right spectrum doesn't mean very much.

I swear that I am not taking anything that he said out of context. I even left out many radical things that my book claims that he said, but there is no evidence.

The he could definitely be a Libertarian.

A Libertarian only believes that government shouldn't be doing these things.
When you approach private affairs, like relationships inside communities, they don't care.

The basis of Libertarian values is individual choice without governmental pressure.

 

[nerv14]

The he could definitely be a Libertarian.

A Libertarian only believes that government shouldn't be doing these things.
When you approach private affairs, like relationships inside communities, they don't care.

The basis of Libertarian values is individual choice without governmental pressure.

He may be against the federal government, and even state governments, which is libertarian.

However, he supports many government projects on the local level that Madison-esc politicians would be against.

Jefferson is pro wealth distribution, public education, free land and progressive taxation. Even if that is on the local level. So he did act libertarian as president, but he would be more socialist on the local level.



there is a difference from community norms, and actual strong local government power.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

He may be against the federal government, and even state governments, which is libertarian.

However, he supports many government projects on the local level that Madison-esc politicians would be against.

Jefferson is pro wealth distribution, public education, free land and progressive taxation. Even if that is on the local level. So he did act libertarian as president, but he would be more socialist on the local level.



there is a difference from community norms, and actual strong local government power.

That in my mind is fine because it gives control to local people who feel every effect of policy changes and taxation.

I personally still disagree with even local government welfare though.

 

[Wessexman]

Being able to pull a few Jefferson quotes that seem to support leftist redistributionism does not change the totality of Jefferson's written works, which do not appear to support socialism imo.

I will have to look into this (if I can find the time), because I definately smell a rat somewhere. I suspect out-of-context cherry-picking is involved.

May have to revisit this issue later.

G.

In my opinion Jefferson is complex, he is one of these sort of left-libertarian classical liberals you often get. He is not social democrat but neither is he an Ayn Rand quote.

 

[Goshin]

Bear in mind, regarding things said about subdividing land: Jefferson lived in a time when the 13 States included a LOT of vacant and unused land, not to mention some Indian-held land, and the rest of the continent was still wide open to settlement. His remarks may well have been construed to preventing the (vast tracks of) UNSETTLED lands from being bought up by wealthly landholders rather than individual families.

Context is crucial.

G.

 

[The silenced majority]

If you'd explain why you think the gov't is theocratic, maybe someone could answer the question.

I believe the government is "theocratic" only in the truest sense of what theocracy means.. Theocracy meaning "God-rule" is not really a type of government, it's just a belief that our government is a sovereign state in the universal kingdom of the creator. This belief is very consistent with those of the framers & it is laid out in our founding documents.

An ecclisiocracy, meaning "church rule" is what people are talking about when they refer to places like Iran as being a "theocracy". Well Iran is a theocracy because they believe their nation to be part of the creator's universe, they are just more-specifically an ecclisiocracy because the church is the chief legislator and law-enforcer.

Neither a theocracy or an ecclesiocracy remotely refers to the direction this country has been headed in the past 40+ years, but that's JMO.

 

[nerv14]

Bear in mind, regarding things said about subdividing land: Jefferson lived in a time when the 13 States included a LOT of vacant and unused land, not to mention some Indian-held land, and the rest of the continent was still wide open to settlement. His remarks may well have been construed to preventing the (vast tracks of) UNSETTLED lands from being bought up by wealthly landholders rather than individual families.

Context is crucial.

G.

I agree that his goal would be for many small families instead of large wealthy landholders would take the land. This goes into his idea of a society (much like America at that time) where most people were in the same "class" by there being few wealthier individuals, like the rest of the founding fathers.

Jefferson went so far as to say that people should be given land if they don't have it. This is different from Madison and John Locke who would support people going and claiming land if it was there, but it not being nescesary. And the reasons for Madison and Locke for people to claim land is to make the most of it, when Jefferson aknowedges the independence from wage labor that land provides as well.

But of course, land is just one part of Jefferson's views anyway.

 

[Wessexman]

Bear in mind, regarding things said about subdividing land: Jefferson lived in a time when the 13 States included a LOT of vacant and unused land, not to mention some Indian-held land, and the rest of the continent was still wide open to settlement. His remarks may well have been construed to preventing the (vast tracks of) UNSETTLED lands from being bought up by wealthly landholders rather than individual families.

Context is crucial.
.

Actually we live in a similar time, it is just now the land has been legally occupied, ie granted by the state, as Nock and Oppenheimer pointed out, it has far from been actually occupied.

I don't think one can rule out Jefferson's distributist/Georgist ideals nor his agrarianism or decentralism. He has a lot in common with American style libertarianism but he has his difference with the average Cato kind.

 

[American]

Don't give up the party yet. The Neocons have been thrown out, and the party needs good Conservatives to help rebuild it. As for myself, I am finally coming home, but with a watchful eye, ready to leave again if events warrant it. So far, I am not too disappointed. Their response to Obama's giveaway is what I expect as a Conservative. They should have done the same with Bush's giveaway, though.

You said you are a Democrat, how could you be coming home?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

>>>>>>>>>>>.

Also, John Locke belives that "life, liberty and estate" should be upheld. However, Jefferson believes in "life, liberty and happiness" with happiness beieng the ultimate goal of mankind.

Therefore according to him, "I am conscious that an equal division of property is impractical. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind."

That is one of his most direct statements about the role of the government to redistribute wealth.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here's something more relevant:

Pursuit of PropertyThe famous phrase is based on the writings of English writer John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1]

The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Property was never regarded by these people as something to be distributed by the state.

Also, there's this intriguing bit of supreme law, recently violated by a justice that didn't retire fast enough. Maybe you recognize it?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Hmmmm....the people who influenced the Declaration of Independence say that man has an undeniable right to acquire property. The people who wrote the Constitution say the government can't steal land, it has to pay fair value for it.

Funny, didn't TJ write the DoI?

Some people have re-distrubutionist tendencies, they're only human and prone to silly errors like that. The Constitution says "NO", firmly.

 

[hrdman2luv]

Good riddance. Despite your advert, you don't sound like a conservative at all.

You sound like a Phony. Fraudulent. Impostor.
A Lib!

Not true.

Not true. It sounds like your history book only goes back 120 days.

Check out who the key players are with Freddie and Fannie.
Check out who has burdened the country with Ponzi Schemes/entitlement programs.

Somewhat true, but the socialists want open borders for the poorly educated... to help increase the numbers of their party.

That's built on the foundation of socialism.

All those IOU's built up from socialist schemes that looked good on paper, but failed miserably under the harsh light of reality.

Clinton dropped Osama twice; The Somali's offered him twice.

Trillions? Oil companies? Pharma?

You really sound like Hillary Clinton.

We have the second highest corporate tax rate. Those that can escape punishment do.

Businesses are not social programs.

LOL.

Somewhat true. We need to elect Conservatives, and we have to overhaul the nomination/primary process so Democrats and independents don't decide our candidate as they did in the last election.

Real genius. Split the party so the socialists have non-stop control of Congress. That's a stroke of genius.

How about working to get Conservatives elected in your area?

Good riddance once again, and please change your moniker from Very Conservative to Very Liberal or otherwise.

And this is exactly why we now have Obama....:spin:

 

[hrdman2luv]

For one, the Libertarians have never had their chance to proveif they are conservative or not. I only know that the ones in our local governments do act very conservative. They don't just talk it.

Number two, the Libertarian party platform is more conservative than the republican platform. Especially since the "Contract for America" change alot of it.
And what did we get from the Contract for America? We got ecactly what we have now.

Libertarians support very small government. Very small taxes. Very little, if any at all, infringments on our personal liberties.

Here's a few examples:
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.

1.2 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.

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.

2.4 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.

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.

You can read more here.> Platform | Libertarian Party