Platforms: Constitution Party Vs. Libertarian Party

[Theocrat]

After reading both of the platforms from the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, I must say they both have some good positions on the issues from a libertarian perspective as compared to the Republican and Democratic parties. However, I find that the Constitution Party's platform is better for a few reasons (among others):

It quotes the Constitution more times than the Libertarian Party in order to give a background and justification for its positions.

Its platform is more exhaustive and specific than the Libertarian Party's, which is very vague and susceptible to some personal interpretation on some of the issues.

It rightly acknowledges the Christian heritage and legacy of our nation as inculcated by our Founding Fathers upon which many of our republican principles of limited government were founded on.

Anyway, those are my critiques of the two parties as understood by their own published platforms, and undoubtedly, some of you will disagree with me. Therefore, I'd like to open some discussion on your views between these two political parties, based on what's written in their respective platforms, and feel free to take the poll I've posted. If neither party's platform suits you, then post why or post another party which you believe is best.

No matter what our varying views may be, please keep in mind that we're all supporters of Congressman Paul, and we're all interested in the principles of liberty and limited government in some way, shape, or form. As much as you can, try to keep the discussion relevant to the CP and LP platforms, and when it's all said and done, we can learn to agree to disagree while maintaining our unity in the spirit of love, respect, and liberty. Without further ado, I present to you the platforms of the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party:

Constitution Party Platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/documents/2004CPPlatform.pdf)


Libertarian Party Platform (http://www.lp.org/book/export/html/95)

Flame responsibly! :D

[FrankRep]

Our enemies don't care about political parties; they'll use whatever party they can to push through their agenda.

We'll do good to realize that. Political parties just divide us into fighting factions.

[nate895]

Personally I think they are close enough that they (and some other parties) should unite behind one banner. However, if I had to pick, I like the CP's platform, though I disagree with some stuff and much of it I would only implement many others on the state level. I also find the AIDS section a bit unnecessary.

[Theocrat]

Our enemies don't care about political parties; they'll use whatever party they can to push through their agenda.

We'll do good to realize that. Political parties just divide us into fighting factions.

Yes, I understand this. However, I was just interested in others' perspectives on the two parties in general. Let's not forget that political parties are necessary in order to present candidates to the voting public, and typically, voters choose these candidates based on the values the candidates' parties stand for (platforms). Party platforms at least give us a general view of what the candidate basically holds to as political capital in running for office.

[pcosmar]

It's a toss up.
But compared to the two main parties. Well,,,

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2574761715_1a8640942b_o.jpg

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am familiar with both platforms. While I am a Christian and I resonate with the CP platform more than the LP platform, I am also practical and disbelieve that an exclusive party will get very far. I first jjoined the CP and then I switched to the LP. I'll tell you one thing...until the American People get hip to the false left/right paradigm, nobody will gain any ground. TONES

[tonesforjonesbones]

My true wish is that Ron Paul would make the Liberty campaign The Liberty Party. That is the only thing that could unite us. TONES

[OptionsTrader]

Best platform: LP
Best candidate for president: CP

[NewFederalist]

Nobody reads the platform anyway so who cares?

[Theocrat]

For discussion purposes. :)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Constitution Party Platform:



Preamble
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and
of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort,
guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and
preserve these United States.

Our founding fathers did not supercede the authority of the King as God's soveriegn authority on earth. What they did instead was isolate King George of England as a tyrant. During the interval in which the King of England was divorced in the Declaration of Independence and later replaced with a new King (the President) in the U.S. Constitution, the people were established scientifically as a mediating power through the use of natural law. This use of natural law established a self evident truth that "all men (every human being) are created equal" while onto the conscience of their human souls they had imprinted indelibly (even greater than an ideal) an unalienable natural right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, while the King still rules the dinner table, the people own the dinner table. When the thirst of the untouchable is quenched at the table, the table is ruled properly by the king; while, when the thirst of the untouchable is neglected, the table is ruled by a tyrant.

So, the mediating power of the people doesn't give them the authority to move the King around to make him do things. At best, the mediating power of the people binds the King and his master class to remain at the same dinner table as the slave class are granted the necessary liberties to come to it.

The power to bind the master class in U.S. history resulted in the taking away of the property of the American Colonists loyal to the British, taking away the wealth of southern plantation owners and the taking away of employees from wealthy Industrialists by establishing them instead in an opposing "New Deal" economics set up by FDR. The Civil Rights Movement was also an American movement which redistributed wealth from a redeveloping master class to a redeveloping slave class.

Our founding fathers substantiated in the people this power as mediators at the national dinner table to regulate the liberties of the great King and of the lowly untouchable.



We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these
United States of America were founded:
That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable
rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the
pursuit of happiness;
That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose
of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the
individual's unalienable rights;
That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through
the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong
national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government
to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of
the people's rights; and
That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the
Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to
those assigned by the consent of the governed.

The above affirmation violates the scientific principle of natural law. Our founding fathers reduced the greatest sovereign power first to a self evident truth that all men are created equal and second to an unalienable natural right written on the conscience of every human soul regarding Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our founding fathers were standing in the judgement of God when they signed this declaration because they believed any further reduction in the natural law would have reduced them into the presence of Christ Himself.

So, expanding this affirmation beyond the self evident truths and unalienable rights should be considered a serious Spiritual violation.

The Libertarian Party Platform:


& posted
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.

Right away this platform does not recognize that the science of natural law was used in the Declaration of Independence and in the resulting U.S. Constitution to define tyranny. Instead, it attempts to establish a political science. Any political science is going to use the lessor corrupt power of tyranny to manipulate the people to a cause rather than rely on the reconsecration of the greater power in the self evident truths and the unalienable natural rights of the people.

Just consider that the people of the United States were not manipulated into becoming citizens through the use of a complex political science; but, rather, its citizens were established as being citizens throught the use of the simple science of natural law. This natural law founded the power of the people by establishing them first on the self evident truths "that all men are created equal" and then second on the unalienable natural rights "to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I agree with the LP 100% and...I quite frankly don't care what the CP platform entails.

regards,

[familydog]

At the national level, they are practically the same with only a few differences like immigration and trade. Don't worry, if Barr does well in the fall, the LP will go for more conservatives like him. You will see the LP platform change.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

At the national level, they are practically the same with only a few differences like immigration and trade. Don't worry, if Barr does well in the fall, the LP will go for more conservatives like him. You will see the LP platform change.

Impossible. LIBERTARIAN party. It can't ever turn social con

[familydog]

Impossible. LIBERTARIAN party. It can't ever turn social con

na·ive
–adjective 1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

na·ive
–adjective 1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

shut up. look at the name of the party, douchebag. you're just a tool in the tool shed. The word Libertarian in the Libertarian Party is a natural defense against that rubbish

you're naive for writing RP in. write-ins count for nothing.

[Nirvikalpa]

shut up. look at the name of the party, douchebag. you're just a tool in the tool shed. The word Libertarian in the Libertarian Party is a natural defense against that rubbish

you're naive for writing RP in. write-ins count for nothing.

And republicans are no longer republicans, and conservatives no longer conservatives. Just like Christians are no longer Christians, and liberals are no longer liberal... because it's only a name. Names don't make the party, the people in it do. And just like some people ruined the GOP, people will ruin the LP and people will ruin the CP.

That's life, unfortunately.

[familydog]

shut up. look at the name of the party, douchebag. you're just a tool in the tool shed. The word Libertarian in the Libertarian Party is a natural defense against that rubbish

you're naive for writing RP in. write-ins count for nothing.

Maybe when you reach puberty we can have a civil discussion :p

[AmericaFyeah92]

shut up. look at the name of the party, douchebag. you're just a tool in the tool shed. The word Libertarian in the Libertarian Party is a natural defense against that rubbish

you're naive for writing RP in. write-ins count for nothing.

DUMBASS

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And republicans are no longer republicans, and conservatives no longer conservatives. Just like Christians are no longer Christians, and liberals are no longer liberal... because it's only a name. Names don't make the party, the people in it do. And just like some people ruined the GOP, people will ruin the LP and people will ruin the CP.

That's life, unfortunately.

You make more sense than, familydog. He never backs up anything. He just tries to insult you as his grand contingent plan to quell dissent. Anyway, true, that's always possible. We go elsewhere, no biggie.

[familydog]

You make more sense than, famildog. He never backs up anything. He just tries to insul you as his grand contingent plan to quell dissent. Anyway, true, that's always possible. We go elsewhere, no biggie.

What plan would that be? :)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What plan would that be? :)

To, uh, quell dissent?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

And republicans are no longer republicans, and conservatives no longer conservatives. Just like Christians are no longer Christians, and liberals are no longer liberal... because it's only a name. Names don't make the party, the people in it do. And just like some people ruined the GOP, people will ruin the LP and people will ruin the CP.

That's life, unfortunately.

Every major party is made up of 100s of minor parties who once had a strong party platform. Eventually in the process of becoming part of a major party, each minor party had to compromise their extremist views.
So, if you really want to maintain your party platform all the way into power, become a Marxist.

[familydog]

To, uh, quell dissent?

Ah. Makes perfect sense. Your value to this discussion is certainly shining at its brightest. :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

yay LP wins the poll.

[Theocrat]

The Constitution Party Platform:



Our founding fathers did not supercede the authority of the King as God's soveriegn authority on earth. What they did instead was isolate King George of England as a tyrant. During the interval in which the King of England was divorced in the Declaration of Independence and later replaced with a new King (the President) in the U.S. Constitution, the people were established scientifically as a mediating power through the use of natural law. This use of natural law established a self evident truth that "all men (every human being) are created equal" while onto the conscience of their human souls they had imprinted indelibly (even greater than an ideal) an unalienable natural right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, while the King still rules the dinner table, the people own the dinner table. When the thirst of the untouchable is quenched at the table, the table is ruled properly by the king; while, when the thirst of the untouchable is neglected, the table is ruled by a tyrant.

So, the mediating power of the people doesn't give them the authority to move the King around to make him do things. At best, the mediating power of the people binds the King and his master class to remain at the same dinner table as the slave class are granted the necessary liberties to come to it.

The power to bind the master class in U.S. history resulted in the taking away of the property of the American Colonists loyal to the British, taking away the wealth of southern plantation owners and the taking away of employees from wealthy Industrialists by establishing them instead in an opposing "New Deal" economics set up by FDR. The Civil Rights Movement was also an American movement which redistributed wealth from a redeveloping master class to a redeveloping slave class.

Our founding fathers substantiated in the people this power as mediators at the national dinner table to regulate the liberties of the great King and of the lowly untouchable.



The above affirmation violates the scientific principle of natural law. Our founding fathers reduced the greatest sovereign power first to a self evident truth that all men are created equal and second to an unalienable natural right written on the conscience of every human soul regarding Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our founding fathers were standing in the judgement of God when they signed this declaration because they believed any further reduction in the natural law would have reduced them into the presence of Christ Himself.

So, expanding this affirmation beyond the self evident truths and unalienable rights should be considered a serious Spiritual violation.

The Libertarian Party Platform:



Right away this platform does not recognize that the science of natural law was used in the Declaration of Independence and in the resulting U.S. Constitution to define tyranny. Instead, it attempts to establish a political science. Any political science is going to use the lessor corrupt power of tyranny to manipulate the people to a cause rather than rely on the reconsecration of the greater power in the self evident truths and the unalienable natural rights of the people.

Just consider that the people of the United States were not manipulated into becoming citizens through the use of a complex political science; but, rather, its citizens were established as being citizens throught the use of the simple science of natural law. This natural law founded the power of the people by establishing them first on the self evident truths "that all men are created equal" and then second on the unalienable natural rights "to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What exactly is the "science of natural law?"

[Mesogen]

Every major party is made up of 100s of minor parties who once had a strong party platform. Eventually in the process of becoming part of a major party, each minor party had to compromise their extremist views.
So, if you really want to maintain your party platform all the way into power, become a Marxist.

And people say we don't live in a democracy. :o

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What exactly is the "science of natural law?"

The science of natural law was the way in which conclusions were arrived at before theoretical science. The truths in such conclusions were written in statements that couldn't be denied logically while they couldn't be misunderstood linguistically.

An example of a natural law is: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
While Einstein has advanced the "universal" view of Newton to a more "relative" view, the truth of the natural law still remains the same as it will forever.

When our founding fathers found these truths to be self evident that "all men are created equal" with unalienable natural rights "to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," they had reduced this conclusion down to its purist form. One couldn't reduce this natural law down any further without being in the presence of God Himself. So, this is why I question the expanded affirmation created by the Constitution Party.

[Theocrat]

For the Constitution and Liberty! :D

[FrankRep]

Constitutional Libertarian!


One could hope.

[AggieforPaul]

I dont identify completely with either party. The LP seems top be middling in favor of Roe v Wade, in favor of unrestricted immigration, and in favor of NAFTA/WTO/GATT.

The Constitution party sounds better at first, but they come off as hypocritical and invasive with respective to gambling and pornography.

[Theocrat]

For more interesting poll results...and discussion. :D

[EgwaTlvdatsi]

I haven't read through all the stuff on this yet, but I am curious about how often God is mentioned and all the other Christian religious speach used in the CP. I know there is a lot of that kind of speach that is made every election, why? What if a Hopi tried to become president? Well, of course the majority of Christian voters would immediately scratch him off from being a presidential candidate, but what if he did make it to be president? How would religious matters be held then?

[sophocles07]

LP

The CP has a more "well written' platform, but they need to jissom out all of their Christ-God-Morality bullshit before they come to party meetings--i.e., erase that shit.

[BuddyRey]

My personal preference is for the Libertarian Party's Platform, before the bulk of it was thrown out at the 2004 Convention and it still featured the "Non-Aggression Principle", but that's beside the point. As much as many of us would like to avoid the fact, neither faction of the freedom movement can survive without the other. The Remnant, while growing, is still too small to effectively combat statism on the national political stage. And why should we be divided? Ron Paul brought us all together, from homeschoolers and born-again Christians to marijuana legalization activists and Vegas strippers!

Freedom can unify everybody, because in its truest form, freedom never harms one group or individual for the benefit of another. Nobody resents his neighbor for being freer, because freedom is equal and absolute.

[Shotdown1027]

The newer CP platform is even better. For every plank, it now cites a constitutional/Founder's justification for why the party holds that opinion on the issue.

Additionally--the AIDS plank was completely struck from the record.

The gambling plank now cites the 10th amendment,leaving it to the states. My party, the Louisiana Constitution Party, has a plank which support full legalization of gambling.

The (abominable) pornography plank just barely survived from being axed from the platform. However, we were able to insert a second paragraph that basically states that we dont want to legislate on the issue--we only want our leaders to have integrity.

The plank on the War on Drugs calls for an end to the War on Drugs and cites the 10th and 4th amendments. Federalizing the issue, as the Constitution demands, as well as citing the 4th amendment (protection from unlawful search and siezure) basically assures that any state-level drug war would be completely toothless. Again, the CP's state parties may have something to say about this issue on their platforms. In Louisiana, Idaho, Texas, and Nevada--we want full legalization.

[Roxi]

OK first i read the CP platform... the first paragraph made me throw up in my mouth a little but i kept reading...... for every sentence i agreed with there was one that struck me with horror.... that being said, in each paragraph i didn't like the tone of, there was the idea that they are only opposing the government funding of these "immoral" issues and nothing to say whether these things would be banned or illegal.... it seems like they would make blow-jobs illegal if they could.

with the below added quote it sounds a bit better, and i was already leaning toward baldwin because i don't trust barr, even though im agnostic and baldwin could lose my vote completely over the fact that jerry fallwell was his mentor..

then i read the LP platform.... i LOVED the first paragraph and each of the sections practically mirrored my beliefs....and seemingly RP's

so even though i consider myself a minarchist I may have to call myself a Libertariminarchst ha ha ha...

ok so whats the difference between Big L and little l libertarians?







The newer CP platform is even better. For every plank, it now cites a constitutional/Founder's justification for why the party holds that opinion on the issue.

Additionally--the AIDS plank was completely struck from the record.

The gambling plank now cites the 10th amendment,leaving it to the states. My party, the Louisiana Constitution Party, has a plank which support full legalization of gambling.

The (abominable) pornography plank just barely survived from being axed from the platform. However, we were able to insert a second paragraph that basically states that we dont want to legislate on the issue--we only want our leaders to have integrity.

The plank on the War on Drugs calls for an end to the War on Drugs and cites the 10th and 4th amendments. Federalizing the issue, as the Constitution demands, as well as citing the 4th amendment (protection from unlawful search and siezure) basically assures that any state-level drug war would be completely toothless. Again, the CP's state parties may have something to say about this issue on their platforms. In Louisiana, Idaho, Texas, and Nevada--we want full legalization.

[Roxi]

Nobody reads the platform anyway so who cares?


nobody reads the ingredients so who cares whats in it :rolleyes::D:cool:

[familydog]

The newer CP platform is even better. For every plank, it now cites a constitutional/Founder's justification for why the party holds that opinion on the issue.

Additionally--the AIDS plank was completely struck from the record.

The gambling plank now cites the 10th amendment,leaving it to the states. My party, the Louisiana Constitution Party, has a plank which support full legalization of gambling.

The (abominable) pornography plank just barely survived from being axed from the platform. However, we were able to insert a second paragraph that basically states that we dont want to legislate on the issue--we only want our leaders to have integrity.

The plank on the War on Drugs calls for an end to the War on Drugs and cites the 10th and 4th amendments. Federalizing the issue, as the Constitution demands, as well as citing the 4th amendment (protection from unlawful search and siezure) basically assures that any state-level drug war would be completely toothless. Again, the CP's state parties may have something to say about this issue on their platforms. In Louisiana, Idaho, Texas, and Nevada--we want full legalization.

Great to hear!

The CP isn't the hobgoblin that many people want it to be. It's refreshing to get some facts on this issue as opposed to just fear mongering. :)

[HOLLYWOOD]

The 2 party (DEMS/REPS) DICTATORSHIP'S NEW AMERICAN FLAG:

It's all a facade from the 2 party government. 11% percent approval for the RIGGED SYSTEM!

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/NEW_Flag_of_the_United_States_of_Am.gif

[Theocrat]

To get more poll results and more post replies. Keep it up! You all have some interesting things to say about the two parties' platforms.

[RockEnds]

The CP lost me right here:



This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of
other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of
worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to
its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its
Constitutional boundaries.


I really think our nation was founded on political principles by men of varying degrees of faith who recognized that the Bible is best preached from a pulpit and invoked by the conscience, not the seat of government.

[Kludge]

The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights

That's all I want in a political party.

[familydog]

I really think our nation was founded on political principles by men of varying degrees of faith who recognized that the Bible is best preached from a pulpit and invoked by the conscience, not the seat of government.

In theory, you are correct. In practice? Meh.

[nobody's_hero]

I always thought the founders (mostly) were deists.

[Theocrat]

Currently, the poll has only sixteen votes for the Constitution Party. :confused: I thought there were more supporters of the Constitution Party than that on these forums.

[familydog]

Currently, the poll has only sixteen votes for the Constitution Party. :confused: I thought there were more supporters of the Constitution Party than that on these forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_list

[Kludge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_list


o.0 What are you suggesting?

[Theocrat]

o.0 What are you suggesting?

Yeah. I didn't understand that, either.

[Theocrat]

This one is for general political discussion. :D

[Theocrat]

I'm bumping this! :D

[RockEnds]

Okay, Theo, if you will, please tell me why you believe America was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and its jurisprudence is rooted in the Bible. There is probably nothing you can say to convince me it's true, but I would honestly like to know your reasoning. And how should America return jurisprudence to its Biblical roots?

[Mckarnin]

I don't believe in theocracy or conversion by the sword/policy but if you remove all of the religious stuff I think the Constitution Party gets more right than the Libertarian party. I am working to make parties irrelevant...will get back to you when that's taken care of. :D

[RockEnds]

I am working to make parties irrelevant...will get back to you when that's taken care of. :D

That would be for the best. Good luck with that.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't believe in theocracy or conversion by the sword/policy but if you remove all of the religious stuff I think the Constitution Party gets more right than the Libertarian party. I am working to make parties irrelevant...will get back to you when that's taken care of. :D

How? Political parties are essentially private organizations. People join together with similar views, they then help elect their candidates to government offices. Other than that, though, you're right, they shouldn't have any influence in government itself, only the individuals.

[Theocrat]

Okay, Theo, if you will, please tell me why you believe America was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and its jurisprudence is rooted in the Bible. There is probably nothing you can say to convince me it's true, but I would honestly like to know your reasoning. And how should America return jurisprudence to its Biblical roots?

Click here (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html). Also, this piece of legislation (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:hr888ih.txt.pdf) might be of some interest to you.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I wish these two parties would register their members to vote for Ron.

In the 2008 General election in Iowa, 4,590 and 4,445 people voted for Barr and Baldwin respectively.

[Created4]

I wish these two parties would register their members to vote for Ron.

In the 2008 General election in Iowa, 4,590 and 4,445 people voted for Barr and Baldwin respectively.

I don't know how they could "register" other people to vote, but I just went to the link of the Constitution Party and this article was linked to from the front page:


11/02/2011

The Real Reasons Republicans dislike Ron Paul

by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
The New American

Although his commitment to “limited government” is unsurpassed, establishment Republicans in both politics and the so-called “conservative media” labor incessantly to discredit Texan Congressman and GOP presidential contender, Ron Paul. On its face, who couldn’t judge this phenomenon, the phenomenon of the most vocal champions of liberty ridiculing and trivializing the most vocal champion of liberty, as anything other than bizarre? Any remotely curious observer couldn’t resist the impulse to inquire into the roots of this enigma.

We needn’t dig too deeply to discover that the establishment Republican’s apparently irrational conduct toward Paul stems from his angst regarding Paul’s foreign policy vision. Paul, you see, rejects in no uncertain terms the notion that Big Government is not only permissible, but desirable, as long as it is non-American citizens abroad upon whom our government’s designs would be brought to bear. Loudly and unapologetically, he rejects the idea that “social engineering” is a good thing as long as it is other societies that our government seeks to “engineer.” Paul makes no secret of his utter contempt, a contempt born of his passion for liberty and individuality, for the belief that policies rooted in utopian fantasy are worthy of pursuit as long as it is not America, but the world, that our government seeks to perfect.

Ron Paul is persona non grata as far as “the leadership” as well as much of the rank and file of the Republican Party is concerned. How could he not be? After all, this shameless defender of the U.S. Constitution is relentless in his quest to expose the assumptions underlying their foreign policy prescriptions as members of the same species of folly as those informing the left’s vision of domestic policy.

To put it more specifically, Paul strives to remind Americans of the legacy bequeathed to them by their ancestors, an invaluable inheritance of individual liberty that those of past generations, through incalculable quantities of their blood, sweat, and tears, forged for their posterity. Our Fathers and Mothers, like our fathers and mothers, Paul beckons us to remember, worked long and hard so that we, their children, would eventually be able to stand on our own two feet. They longed for us not only to appreciate their gift of liberty, but to embrace it enthusiastically. Paul urges us to be forever mindful that it is this enthusiasm, and only this enthusiasm, that stands between our liberty and the totalitarianism that always threatens to consume it.

Big Government, whether it is invoked for purposes of imposing designs upon foreign countries or our own, is intrinsically antithetical to the liberty for which our Fathers lived and died. This any disciple of liberty knows. This Ron Paul knows. And it is the forgotten knowledge of this truth of which he tirelessly seeks to arouse within his countrymen and women.

I still believe that it is Paul’s position on American foreign policy that elicits most of the disdain with which his fellow Republicans greet him. But I am starting to believe that there is more to the matter than just this.

It isn’t just Paul’s approach to foreign policy with which Republicans take issue; they are displeased as well with his disposition toward domestic policy.

Note, it isn’t just Paul’s position on this or that domestic issue to which they object. It is his entire understanding of which these positions are a function that they find unpalatable. More precisely, Republicans, for all of their talk of liberty, find repugnant Paul’s view on the proper relationship between the government and the citizen, politics, and culture.

Ron Paul is an apostle of traditional American liberty. The vast majority of us are our Founding Fathers’ prodigal sons (and daughters) whom Ron Paul, at 76 years of age, continues to call home. From early on in Christian history, some of its brightest minds have sought to address “the problem of evil,” the problem of reconciling belief in an omnipotent and all-loving God with the presence of evil in the world. Usually, a resolution has been found in some variation or other of “the free will defense.” According to this line of reasoning, God could have created human beings so that they never did evil, but He preferred a creation in which humans were free, for only with free agents could He have a genuine relationship. However, the freedom to accept God’s offer of friendship inescapably entails the freedom to reject that offer. To put it another way, the freedom to do good is also the freedom to do evil.

God recognizes that there can be no virtue without freedom. Ron Paul does too.

It is precisely because of his recognition of this fact that Paul opposes all attempts to diminish individuals’ liberty for the sake of some amorphous “common good,” some supposedly moral state that the government is entrusted with bringing to fruition. More simply put, he staunchly opposes attempts to impute to the federal government the role of a parent, for if the government is a parent, then the citizen is its child.

While it isn’t obvious to many, the plain fact of the matter is that most of Paul’s fellow Republicans are no less committed to what we may, for purposes of convenience, refer to as “the Welfare State.” The “compassionate conservatism” championed by President George W. Bush and legions of other self-described “conservative” politicians and media personalities in the previous decade was just another term for “welfarism.” And though “compassionate conservatism” has fallen on hard times — no current Republican presidential aspirant would dare to characterize him- or herself in these terms — there is no denying that Republicans have abetted and continue to abet the growth of government vis-à-vis their approach to domestic policy.

There isn’t a single redistributive scheme that Republicans have sought to revoke, and plenty that they have actually initiated. But beyond the matter of “economic redistribution,” Republicans want to use the government as an agent of “character formation.” Rick Santorum is as pure an illustration of this propensity as any. From this perspective, the government must inculcate virtue in its citizens. The notion, common to Democrats and Republicans alike, that politicians generally and the President in particular are “leaders” is a function of this belief.

The pieces of this puzzle of Republicans’ reaction to Ron Paul’s advocacy of liberty and individuality are finally in place. They support a philosophy of Big Government and he does not. It is his stances on foreign and domestic policy that render Ron Paul the object of their scorn.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The old Libertarian Party platform thrashes the Constitution and any other party's platform a million ways to Sunday:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040714013714/www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

[heavenlyboy34]

Parties are irrelevant. As RP has demonstrated, individual members of parties can hold beliefs antithetical to the official party line. In an ideal world, parties wouldn't exist.

[heavenlyboy34]

The old Libertarian Party platform thrashes the Constitution and any other party's platform a million ways to Sunday:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040714013714/www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html
That's good. Thanks, I've never seen it before. +rep

[PierzStyx]

I don't. The right to vote is not a property right, it is a moral right. It is an idea, and you cannot "own" ideas. You want just property rights protected? Move to a monarchy. This is a republic and we have more rights at stake here then just the few covered by property rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't. The right to vote is not a property right, it is a moral right. It is an idea, and you cannot "own" ideas. You want just property rights protected? Move to a monarchy. This is a republic and we have more rights at stake here then just the few covered by property rights.
All rights extend from property rights. We own ourselves, and can thus own property. The nature of self-ownership implies all other natural rights. (fictional rights, such as IP, are not extensions of self-ownership and not legitimate laws) Furthermore, the fact that some people believe in republican principles does not imply rights at all. It is simply a structure (Soviet Russia was a republic, you know).

[PierzStyx]

Okay, Theo, if you will, please tell me why you believe America was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and its jurisprudence is rooted in the Bible. There is probably nothing you can say to convince me it's true, but I would honestly like to know your reasoning. And how should America return jurisprudence to its Biblical roots?

Actually jurisprudence IS a Biblical concept in and of itself. The Mosaic Law (Law of Moses) established by God through Moses guaranteed the right to a trial by jury, to trial by judge, presentation of witnesses and evidence, and a punishment equal to the crime committed but no more than that (the much often incorrectly quoted "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth"). In the Mosaic Law one was first considered innocent until proven guilty by the law as it stood, which was perhaps not perfect but far better than any other law system at the time where guilt was assumed and you were summarily executed if not for guilt then as a warning to others. The Western concepts of these that we have today developed out of Biblical understanding. Many often point to the Greeks, but even with the assumption that the Five Books of Moses were actually written by groups of writers much later the Biblical ideas of equal justice before the law and others mentioned predate Greece by 1,000 yrs.

As for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, well it really depends on what you mean. Was it founded on the doctrines of Christ, the dogma of a church? No. But its ideals, its principles were the core ideals of the Revolution. For instance the Christian ideal that man is beholden to no state but God for his actions and has the liberty to live life as he will is a Christian one, and a revolutionary one at that. Free Agency, the ability given by God to man to act for himself, to make his own choices, to be who he would be, is a Christian ideal that made it into the core of the founding philosophy. In this way the Gospel of Christ was the foundation of the Revolution and the nation because it was the foundation of how they the Founders saw themselves in relation to one another, the king, and the universe as a whole.

[PierzStyx]

I always thought the founders (mostly) were deists.

Not true. Only Jefferson and Franklin (and maybe Hamilton) could with any truth be called deists. And even Franklin thought the Bible the greatest amongst books and Jefferson called Jesus his God. Many of the Founders were dedicated religious men, but they kept their religion private. They didn't make a show of it for votes the way Rick Perry or Sarah Palin does today. In this way Ron Paul further mirrors them as he to is a deeply faithful man but keeps his religion private and doesn't use it to win worldly acclaim.

[specsaregood]

In an ideal world, parties wouldn't exist.

Which is why TPTB want to get rid of candidates altogether and just have people vote for a party.


The Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS) a group created for the bicentennial and of which more than 1/3 of the directors were CFR members proposed drastic changes to the Constitution. These changes were outlined in the book: "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System."
Here are some of the changes they proposed:
1. No longer allow Americans to vote for individual candidates. You can only vote for a party/slate of candidates. This includes eliminating Independent candidates.
2. Expand congress, The party who's nominee became president would be able to designate 1/6 of congress members and 1/3 of all Senators.
3. Lower the requirement for Senate ratification of treaties.
4. Extend Representatives terms' from 2 to 4 years.
5. Extend Senators terms' from 6 to 8 years.
6. Allow congressman to serve in the executive branch at the same time as holding their congressional seat.
From: "Shadows of Power", pg 200

[jmhudak17]

"We call on our local, state
and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to
free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity"

this literally made me laugh

[PierzStyx]

"We call on our local, state
and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to
free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity"

this literally made me laugh

Point made. That is awkward. But certain obscenity laws are good. After all I think we can all agree that child porn is a very bad thing, and it is covered by the obscenity laws.

[jmhudak17]

Point made. That is awkward. But certain obscenity laws are good. After all I think we can all agree that child porn is a very bad thing, and it is covered by the obscenity laws.

there's a difference between obscenity laws and laws against exploitation

[PierzStyx]

there's a difference between obscenity laws and laws against exploitation

Yes and no. Laws against exploration make it illegal to produce child pornography. But what about once it is already made? It is the obscenity laws that make distribution of the child pornography illegal. Now if you think that is unnecessarily convoluted you'd be correct but there it is.

[PierzStyx]

"The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body." -CP I don't think RP would have said it any better or any differently. Especially this part: "We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2."

[jmhudak17]

i'm personally anti-abortion because i think the fetus is a person, but the fact that they're against things like pornography because they think it's morally wrong worries me.

[The Magic Hoof]

http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/libertarian-party-vs-constitution-party - has this link been posted?

I just read through a little. It seems to me that I'm more in the Libertarian party realm than the constitutionalist realm. I think first the constitution should be enforced to a T, and THEN we can go back and fight about everything else once that's done :)