Political Crossfire Forums

[limbaughfan]

Can someone please explian the libertarian party's stance on the following issues

1. Gun Rights
2. Smoking Bans
3.Wealth Redistribution
4.Property Rights
5. Taxes
6. Socialized Medicine.

[agentkgb]

I might start with LP.org. I don't see stuff on smoking there but gun laws, taxes, and healthcare are listed.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1. Gun Rights

LP supports all gun rights, With Zero Gun Control

2. Smoking Bans

LP Supports the right of Bars to choose weather or not their patrons can smoke in their establishments

3.Wealth Redistribution

LP Is agianst everything that relates to Wealth Redistribution

4.Property Rights

Propery Is Sacred, and not to be regulated by any goverment

5. Taxes

Taxes Must be eliminated as much as possible, some oppose all taxes

6. Socialized Medicine.

Against

[limbaughfan]

Ragnar Danneskjold wrote: 1. Gun Rights

LP supports all gun rights, With Zero Gun Control

2. Smoking Bans

LP Supports the right of Bars to choose weather or not their patrons can smoke in their establishments

3.Wealth Redistribution

LP Is agianst everything that relates to Wealth Redistribution

4.Property Rights

Propery Is Sacred, and not to be regulated by any goverment

5. Taxes

Taxes Must be eliminated as much as possible, some oppose all taxes

6. Socialized Medicine.

Against

The libertarian party seems to be the best party then

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

limbaughfan wrote: Ragnar Danneskjold wrote: 1. Gun Rights

LP supports all gun rights, With Zero Gun Control

2. Smoking Bans

LP Supports the right of Bars to choose weather or not their patrons can smoke in their establishments

3.Wealth Redistribution

LP Is agianst everything that relates to Wealth Redistribution

4.Property Rights

Propery Is Sacred, and not to be regulated by any goverment

5. Taxes

Taxes Must be eliminated as much as possible, some oppose all taxes

6. Socialized Medicine.

Against

The libertarian party seems to be the best party then

Its the only party that actually makes sense.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Thank you for saying so.

[Hegelian_Center]

Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Hegelian_Center wrote: Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

Which "traditional roots" do you mean? The Republican Party was the bastion of progressivism until the 1920s, and didn't really become the conservative party until the 1960s.

In any case, no. The Republican Party has generally concerned itself with fiscal responsibility and economic policy... but it's always been in favor of pro-business spending. And, early last century, they took over the mantle of moral conservatism from the Democrats-- which the Libertarians utterly reject.

[agentkgb]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Hegelian_Center wrote: Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

Which "traditional roots" do you mean? The Republican Party was the bastion of progressivism until the 1920s, and didn't really become the conservative party until the 1960s.

In any case, no. The Republican Party has generally concerned itself with fiscal responsibility and economic policy... but it's always been in favor of pro-business spending.
It's more neo-conservative now, I heard someone say once it was "hijacked" by neoconservatives, which seems to be accurate.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Hegelian_Center wrote: Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

No its brining classical liberalism back to the U.S, essentially we belive above all else in the rights of the individual.

Ragnar Danneskjold pretty much summed it all up. If you want me to go into it more philosophically (this being the forum for it) i'd be happy to.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Hegelian_Center wrote: Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

No its brining classical liberalism back to the U.S, essentially we belive above all else in the rights of the individual.

Libertarianism has almost nothing to do with Enlightenment-era classical liberalism. We already beat that subject to death in another thread.

Quote:
Ragnar Danneskjold pretty much summed it all up. If you want me to go into it more philosophically (this being the forum for it) i'd be happy to.

Philosophically speaking, libertarianism boils down to the belief that private property and contracts are sacred, a belief with no logically coherent foundation whatsoever.

[thefranzkafkafront]

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Hegelian_Center wrote: Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

No its brining classical liberalism back to the U.S, essentially we belive above all else in the rights of the individual.

Libertarianism has almost nothing to do with Enlightenment-era classical liberalism. We already beat that subject to death in another thread.

Did we now.

Quote:
Quote:
Ragnar Danneskjold pretty much summed it all up. If you want me to go into it more philosophically (this being the forum for it) i'd be happy to.

Philosophically speaking, libertarianism boils down to the belief that private property and contracts are sacred, a belief with no logically coherent foundation whatsoever.
No it boils down to the idea that coersion is unjustifiable, property rights are only a small part of it and most certainly not respected as naively absolute.

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:
a belief with no logically coherent foundation whatsoever.

There is no belief in existance, nor can there ever be one, with a logically coherent foundation.


You either agree with it or you don't. No logic needed.

[thefranzkafkafront]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
a belief with no logically coherent foundation whatsoever.

There is no belief in existance, nor can there ever be one, with a logically coherent foundation.


You either agree with it or you don't. No logic needed.

Well the Cogito for a start.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Hegelian_Center wrote: Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

No its brining classical liberalism back to the U.S, essentially we belive above all else in the rights of the individual.

Libertarianism has almost nothing to do with Enlightenment-era classical liberalism. We already beat that subject to death in another thread.

Did we now.

Quote:
Quote:
Ragnar Danneskjold pretty much summed it all up. If you want me to go into it more philosophically (this being the forum for it) i'd be happy to.

Philosophically speaking, libertarianism boils down to the belief that private property and contracts are sacred, a belief with no logically coherent foundation whatsoever.
No it boils down to the idea that coersion is unjustifiable, property rights are only a small part of it and most certainly not respected as naively absolute.

Claiming an exclusive property right in land and natural resources implies coercion against everyone else who would want to use the land and natural resources. Thus, libertarianism is inherently self-contradictory.

[thefranzkafkafront]

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Hegelian_Center wrote: Is the Libertarian Party an attempt to recover the Republican Party's traditional roots?

No its brining classical liberalism back to the U.S, essentially we belive above all else in the rights of the individual.

Libertarianism has almost nothing to do with Enlightenment-era classical liberalism. We already beat that subject to death in another thread.

Did we now.

Quote:
Quote:
Ragnar Danneskjold pretty much summed it all up. If you want me to go into it more philosophically (this being the forum for it) i'd be happy to.

Philosophically speaking, libertarianism boils down to the belief that private property and contracts are sacred, a belief with no logically coherent foundation whatsoever.
No it boils down to the idea that coersion is unjustifiable, property rights are only a small part of it and most certainly not respected as naively absolute.

Claiming an exclusive property right in land and natural resources implies coercion against everyone else who would want to use the land and natural resources. Thus, libertarianism is inherently self-contradictory. Well this really all comes down to what property is, as i've argued before the essential basis of property is production or labour, i've also argued that you can own land and nat resorces by manipluating them in some fashion, thus by labour owning them.

Prehaps yes, when coal is sitting under the ground its non-ownable. But how can it be deined that once someone uses labour to build and mine and extract said coal that he has made it his property via labour?

[Corona]

Corret me if I'm wrong, but libertarians believe that a man get what he deserves/earns, which is more exclusively known as justice.

Machiavelli, in his book The Prince, said that bartering and contracts is the way of men, and force is the way of beasts. Libertarians don't believe in taking another's property with force, they believe in the willing co-operation of free individuals. An object has no value until value is placed in it, in other words, it has no value unless you work for it, and earn it.

I saw the Libertarian Leader in here somewhere, he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

[cap'n queasy]

Whether or not a piece of property is used to produce something is irrelevant in regards to ownership.

One does not have to use the land for anything to own it. Who cares if non-owners are denied any resources on my land I choose to own use only for recreational purposes? I certainly don't. It's my land, I bought it. Only my opinion of how the land is used is valid.

If you want to get to them, you are going to have to buy the property from me. And I'm going to charge you a lot.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Corona wrote:
I saw the Libertarian Leader in here somewhere, he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Rawr!

Yeah you've certainly got a good way of looking at it.

Yet another way to look at it would to be to say that a libertarian belives that the only justification for a state (yes we do belive in states) is to protect the rights of the individual.

Im a libertraian as oposed ot a Libertarian though,if that makes any sense

[thefranzkafkafront]

cap'n queasy wrote: Whether or not a piece of property is used to produce something is irrelevant in regards to ownership.

One does not have to use the land for anything to own it. Who cares if non-owners are denied any resources on my land I choose to own use only for recreational purposes? I certainly don't. It's my land, I bought it. Only my opinion of how the land is used is valid.

If you want to get to them, you are going to have to buy the property from me. And I'm going to charge you a lot.

Well it all comes down to where property comes from, the general concensus is from labour, but people differ on what can be produced from labour, and exaclty what that means.

As i've said I belive that includes natural resorces and land.