From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:45:19 GMT

In article <C19KMK.K9C@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
}In article <1993Jan21.183818.27963@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
}rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
}
}|>In article <C17vyu.B9n@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
}
}|>}O.K. then since the "Libertarians" have asked for a quiz perhaps they could
}|>}defend US involvement in third world regimes which oppress human rights. What
}|>is
}|>}the "Libertarian" position on the air strikes in Iraq? Specificaly is the UN
}|>}entitled to determine the borders of countries and is the movement of the
}|>}Kewaiti border 1/2 Km into former Iraqui territory valid in terms of
}|>property
}|>}rights? If the answer is yes is it nevertheless a good idea to do something
}|>}which may be used as casum belli in the future?
}|>}
}|>
}|>From the 1992 LP Platform:  
}|>
}|>"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and
}|>the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and
}|>property of the American people on American soil.  Provision of such
}|>defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere."
}|>
}|>Further, "We support the withdrawal of the United States government from,
}|>and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations.  We oppose the
}|>U.S. government participation in any world or international government.  We
}|>oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated."
}
}And just how does the Libertarian party jusatify the existence of nations under
}its principles in the first place? Since they are opposed to governments it
}would seem that a world organisation which constrains the sovereignty of
}individual nations would be a primary goal of a real Libertarian.
}

Where does it say the LP is opposed to governments?  What we oppose are
violations of the rights of individuals.  Your inference that the LP would
want an organization constraining the sovereignty of nations does not
follow.  

}Unfortunately the real goal pops up instead. The Libertarian party is merely a
}group of isolationists who want to abdicate from international responsibility
}just as they do in all other fields.
}

In terms of foreign affairs, the goal of the LP is neutrality and free
trade.  What "international responsibility" does the Libertarian Party of
the United States have?  Or are you saying this responsiblity is on the US?
 

}Although I am no great fan of NATO, particularly because it spent taxpayers
}money for overtly partisan political purposes, it is undeniable that it played a
}major role in maintaining world peace. Because the West was united against
}Russia it was clear that a peacemeal attack such as Hitler employed would not
}have worked.
}
}I fail to see any validity in a "Libertarianism" that could stand idly by and
}allow Hitler to commit genocide in Europe. Would Libertarians support an embargo
}against a country if its leaders were commiting mass murder?
}

But Libertarianism does not stand idly by.  We seek repeal of current laws
restricting individuals in their attempt "to aid overseas organizations
fighting to overthrow or change governments."  This includes "voluntary
cooperation with any economic boycott."  Lines quoted are from the 1992 LP
Platform.

}The propblem with the US libertarian party is that they have no interest in
}anyone else's liberty but their own, self-interest clothed in self-righteous
}altruism. A transparent creation at the best of times.
}

Not so, but don't just take my word for it.  The LP Platform is avaible via
ftp through think.com.


}|>}Easier topics, is the US govt entitled to tap the phones of its citizens
}|>within
}|>}its borders? Is it entitled to tap the phones of it's citizens in other
}|>}countries? If not is there any circumstance in which it is permissible for
}|>the
}|>}government to tap a phone?
}|>}
}|>}
}|>The Libertarian Party supports and defends the fourth amendment to the US
}|>Constitution which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and
}|>seizures.
}|>
}|>To repeat what I said earlier, the application of liberty far exceeds the
}|>issue of taxes.
}
}If there is proof that a person is an extorsionist, demanding money with menaces
}etc would it be justified to tap his phone with the objective of capturing his
}accomplices?
}
}The problem here is that if the tap is denied then the rights of the victims of
}the extorsion are going to be infringed, does the infringement of the criminals
}rights override the infringement of his victims rights?
}
A tap may be placed but only through due process.  From the Fourth
Amendment, "...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  In other words, law
enforcement agencies must bring enough evidence before a judge for a
warrant for the tap to be legal.  This point was addressed previously by
June Genis in an earlier post.

}The big problem with Liberty is that some liberties are genuinely contradictory.
}Simply demanding every individual right is not enough. It is necessary to
}distinguish the cases where there is a genuine collective need to infringe
}individual rights and where a claim is merely being made for expediency.
}

Under a condition of liberty, all individuals are equal in their rights.
But rights are not additive.  Two individual do not have twice the rights
of one individual.  


}The problem with the Libertarian party is that they contribute nothing to the
}debate. Faced with a problem they do not offer a solution but instead attack the
}circumstances of the question. It is far more valuable in the persuit of
}individual liberties to demonstrate practical mechanisms by which the individual
}can be protected from abuse by authority than to merely attack the basis of the
}authority. The latter position is merely anarchy, a theory which is attractive
}in its simplicity but disastrous in its application.
}

Okay, present those practical mechanisms you think will protect people from
the abuse of authority.

}--
}
}Phill Hallam-Baker


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69834 alt.president.clinton:1808