PDA

View Full Version : "Libertarian Party Abandons Libertarianism, Constitution"




Jeremy
04-28-2008, 02:07 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020742.html

Kludge
04-28-2008, 02:22 PM
Hmmm..... This isn't that big of a deal...

I doubt it was a political play. The libertarian purity of Libertarians is often fairly low. We need moderate positions and moderate candidates if we're going to broaden our party's appeal.

The law in question is to prevent aggression. I've yet to meet a libertarian who doesn't believe everyone must abide by the non-aggression principle, and increased enforcement (or unspecified "coordination" in this case) is a very petty thing to argue over.

weslinder
04-28-2008, 02:27 PM
Since much child pornography is distributed through interstate commerce there is no Constitutional problem with Federal police prosecuting those crimes. It may not be libertarian, but it's not Unconstitutional.

ronpaulhawaii
04-28-2008, 02:40 PM
Since much child pornography is distributed through interstate commerce there is no Constitutional problem with Federal police prosecuting those crimes. It may not be libertarian, but it's not Unconstitutional.

Wouldn't they have to be "buying" the images for it to be commerce?

Kludge
04-28-2008, 02:42 PM
Wouldn't they have to be "buying" the images for it to be commerce?

I'd imagine trading, bartering and purchasing WOULD occur.

mdh
04-28-2008, 02:46 PM
Wouldn't they have to be "buying" the images for it to be commerce?

Nope. Barter (for example, p2p systems) could also be considered interstate commerce.

Not to mention that they are not calling for a new law at all, only for people to work together better with other people. The bill of rights is all about "Congress shall make no law.." - nowhere does it say "People shall not work together with other people..."

That isn't to say that I agree with the issuing of this statement - I don't. As libertarians, we need to work towards less government. Why one person in the LP decided to make this release, I am not sure. I do know that these releases are virtually unilaterally issued by one individual, Shane Cory, and does not represent the LNC or many many other libertarians.

Alawn
04-28-2008, 02:55 PM
The feds have no business at all here no matter how horrible the crime is. The LP should be ashamed of themselves.

Truth Warrior
04-28-2008, 03:56 PM
Maybe we should sic the Feds on the sociopaths. Oh wait, that would just pretty much empty out D.C. :D

Rhys
04-28-2008, 04:30 PM
There's always one party worse at politics than the dems.... the Libertarians.

nate895
04-28-2008, 04:39 PM
There's always one party worse at politics than the dems.... the Libertarians.

And then there's the Greens and Reformers. I think they have fewer elected officials than the Libertarians.

Zeeder
04-28-2008, 04:47 PM
In other words the war on drugs is perfectly constitutional because it something that is bought.

That's great. The federal government can pretty much do anything it wants in the name of "commerce".

nate895
04-28-2008, 04:48 PM
In other words the war on drugs is perfectly constitutional because it something that is bought.

That's great. The federal government can pretty much do anything it wants in the name of "commerce".

I wouldn't go that far. The Feds could ban interstate trade and international trade of drugs. They can't ban it within a state.

Zeeder
04-28-2008, 05:02 PM
I wouldn't go that far. The Feds could ban interstate trade and international trade of drugs. They can't ban it within a state.

And this is the Ron Paul constitutional position? That the Federal government has the right to arrest people if they cross state lines with pot? Even if both states have it legalized?
Isn't this where we are now?

I don't believe the interstate commerce clause overules the 10th ammendment, giving the Feds power to arrest anybody for anyting they want to outlaw.

With this interpretation they could outlaw peanuts, and since they are only grown in Georgia and some other states, the rest of the country could be arrested for eating them.

BenjFranklin
04-28-2008, 05:04 PM
It's actually quite ironic. The LP is all about States rights when it comes to killing a fetus, but when a twisted freak takes pictures of live children they want the Feds involved. Now I find myself questioning what other areas of society the LP might want Federal involvement in. :mad:

I don't believe the Commmerce Clause grants unilateral federal power over anything and everything that crosses state lines. It was about keeping commerce regular and peaceful. These days ,almost everything we do somehow goes across state lines. Should we put up with more government just because of that?

nate895
04-28-2008, 05:10 PM
And this is the Ron Paul constitutional position? That the Federal government has the right to arrest people if they cross state lines with pot? Even if both states have it legalized?
Isn't this where we are now?

I don't believe the interstate commerce clause overules the 10th ammendment, giving the Feds power to arrest anybody for anyting they want to outlaw.

With this interpretation they could outlaw peanuts, and since they are only grown in Georgia and some other states, the rest of the country could be arrested for eating them.

All clauses in the US Constitution are subject to reason. Therefore, I assume that you couldn't ban peanut consumption, and therefore no one will vote to deny people peanuts. However, if one state chooses to legalize marijuana and other to not do so, it would be incumbent on the Federal Government to help the states banning it by preventing trade between legal and illegal states of the substance.

torchbearer
04-28-2008, 05:16 PM
The interstate clause was to garuntee the free flow of trade between the states.
To prevent interstate tariffs and such.

Rhys
04-28-2008, 05:20 PM
my friend's pet cause is the ICC. He's a lawyer, and as he's described it, the ICC has been used to impose federal authority over "anything which could effect interstate commerce." So if you kidnap someone across state lines, it effects what they could have bought in their state over the state they went to and it makes it federal. sucky sucky stuff

so yes, peanuts can be illegal.

Xenophage
04-28-2008, 06:51 PM
The Libertarian Party has been alienating their intellectual and ideological core for years.

As a Libertarian I feel I've got no real political home in America anymore. The Constitution Party may now be more rigidly principled than the LP, but as an atheist they don't appeal to me.

torchbearer
04-28-2008, 07:07 PM
The Libertarian Party has been alienating their intellectual and ideological core for years.

As a Libertarian I feel I've got no real political home in America anymore. The Constitution Party may now be more rigidly principled than the LP, but as an atheist they don't appeal to me.

I can say this much, the Libertarian Party of Louisiana, is not the same as the National Libertarian Party.

We nailed down a great platform this year in the state party.

airborne373
04-28-2008, 07:45 PM
I have really been disappointed in the Libertarians and their candidates. The ones I have met in my home state are very unimpressive. But we have some of the same issues there are people in our RP meetup who are closer to communist ideals than Republican and one of them is now part of Trevor's Breakthematrix website posing as a Ron Paul supporter.

Knightskye
04-28-2008, 08:16 PM
Hmmm..... This isn't that big of a deal...

I doubt it was a political play. The libertarian purity of Libertarians is often fairly low. We need moderate positions and moderate candidates if we're going to broaden our party's appeal.

The law in question is to prevent aggression. I've yet to meet a libertarian who doesn't believe everyone must abide by the non-aggression principle, and increased enforcement (or unspecified "coordination" in this case) is a very petty thing to argue over.

Can they be moderate without violating the Constitution? Libertarians like small government. Why would they give the Federal Government the incentive to have a war on child porn. Smells like an easy way to pass some nanny state laws.

surf
04-28-2008, 09:40 PM
The interstate clause was to garuntee the free flow of trade between the states.
To prevent interstate tariffs and such.


well said. i was disappointed in my LP as i read this news.

Kludge
04-28-2008, 10:14 PM
Can they be moderate without violating the Constitution? Libertarians like small government. Why would they give the Federal Government the incentive to have a war on child porn. Smells like an easy way to pass some nanny state laws.

Moderate Libertarians are basically just disenfranchised Conservatives. If we can ever get one in office, we can start working - gradually - towards more radical candidates.

mdh
04-28-2008, 10:39 PM
I'd say that the majority of us Libertarians are disenfranchised conservatives.

Classical conservatism, as I call it, is basically libertarianism but with less open borders, less pro-abortion activism, and more focus on economics than on social issues in general.

Alex Libman
05-04-2008, 04:54 AM
http://digg.com/politics/Libertarian_Party_shake_up_Shane_Cory_resigns

demolama
05-04-2008, 09:57 AM
I've always said there are 2 types of libertarians, decentralized and centralized. What I mean by that is anything that gives any liberty back to the people at any level of government is ok with the centralized libertarians even if the means are unconstitutional. For example the Kelo vs. New London decision, had the decision gone down in favor of the property owners centralized libertarians would have been happy; however, decentralized libertarians would have been outraged the case was heard in federal court to begin with since its a state/local issue and the federal government has no jurisdiction in the case.

Centralized libertarians have no problem destroying the rule of law in order to gain freedom... which in my opinion is no better than anyone else who blatantly ignores the rule of law to gain more power.

Kludge
05-04-2008, 11:59 AM
I've always said there are 2 types of libertarians, decentralized and centralized. What I mean by that is anything that gives any liberty back to the people at any level of government is ok with the centralized libertarians even if the means are unconstitutional. For example the Kelo vs. New London decision, had the decision gone down in favor of the property owners centralized libertarians would have been happy; however, decentralized libertarians would have been outraged the case was heard in federal court to begin with since its a state/local issue and the federal government has no jurisdiction in the case.

Centralized libertarians have no problem destroying the rule of law in order to gain freedom... which in my opinion is no better than anyone else who blatantly ignores the rule of law to gain more power.

Pure libertarians don't believe in the Constitution as anything more then a set of laws that has no power to govern The State - as proven time and time again. It's ignored by the President and Congress, misinterpreted (purposefully or not) by the Supreme Court, and not understood by the American Public. We have no need for a Bill of Rights - they are natural rights.

dude58677
05-04-2008, 01:58 PM
The libertarians have faltered on principle. The "Libertarian" Sheriff Bill Masters from Colorado enforces the drug war. They don't talk about civil disobedience like Ron Paul does and finally they have been unsuccessful at geting into office. The Ron Paul movement has a few primary winners for the congressional seat. The highest office of any libertarian is Bill Masters.

mdh
05-04-2008, 02:01 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Libertarian_Party_shake_up_Shane_Cory_resigns

It's kind of funny, in the wake of this, I spoke to a friend who is in a position to do something about it, and he gave me the impression that a lot of folks were equally disturbed. I guess something got done about it. :)