Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Libertarian Platform, Part 1 of 10
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:08:28 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Here is (without the Preamble) the LP Platform and my comments.  I have
broken it up into ten parts.  Replies may want to further trim/break up the
posts.  The table of contents for part 1 should probably always be trimmed from
responses.  It's about 150 lines.

Part 1
------------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (for all parts)
 
Statement of Principles                    (1)
 
I. Individual Rights and Civil Order       (1)
 
  1. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY            (1)
 
  2. CRIME                                 (1)
 
  3. VICTIMLESS CRIMES                     (1)
 
  4. SAFEGUARDS FOR THE CRIMINALLY ACCUSED (1)
 
  5. JUSTICE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL            (1)
 
  6. JURIES                                (2)
 
  7. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY                (2)
 
  8. GOVERNMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH          (2)
 
  9. FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION              (2)
 
  10. FREEDOM OF RELIGION                  (2)
 
  11. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY                (3)
 
  12. PROTECTION OF PRIVACY                (3)
 
  13. GOVERNMENT SECRECY                   (3)
 
  14. INTERNAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES (3)
 
  15. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS      (3)
 
  16. CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY        (3)
 
  17. IMMIGRATION                          (3)
 
  18. DISCRIMINATION                       (4)
 
  19. WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND ABORTION          (4)
 
  20. FAMILY LIFE                          (4)
 
  21. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS                    (4)
 
  22. AMERICAN INDIAN RIGHTS               (4)
 
  23. THE WAR ON DRUGS                     (4)
 
II. Trade and the Economy                  (5) -- all of II
 
  1. THE ECONOMY
 
  2. TAXATION
 
  3. INFLATION AND DEPRESSION
 
  4. FINANCE AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT
 
  5. GOVERNMENT DEBT
 
  6. MONOPOLIES
 
  7. SUBSIDIES
 
  8. TARIFFS AND QUOTAS
 
  9. PUBLIC UTILITIES
 
  10. UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 
III. Domestic Ills                      (6) -- all of III
 
  1. ENERGY
 
  2. POLLUTION
 
  3. CONSUMER PROTECTION
 
  4. EDUCATION
 
  5. POPULATION
 
  6. TRANSPORTATION
 
  7. POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
 
  8. HEALTH CARE
 
  9. RESOURCE USE
 
  10. AGRICULTURE
 
  11. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEATH ACT (OSHA)
 
  12. SOCIAL SECURITY
 
  13. POSTAL SERVICE
 
  14. CIVIL SERVICE
 
  15. ELECTION LAWS
 
IV. Foreign Affairs                     (7) -- all of IVa
 
 A. Diplomatic Policy
 
  1. NEGOTIATIONS
 
  2. INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND FOREIGN INVESTMENTS
 
  3. HUMAN RIGHTS
 
  4. WORLD GOVERNMENT
 
  5. SECESSION
 
 B. Military                           (8) -- all of IVb & IVc
 
  1. MILITARY POLICY
 
  2. PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS
 
 C. Economic Policy
 
  1. FOREIGN AID
 
  2. INTERNATIONAL MONEY
 
  3. UNOWNED RESOURCES
 
 D. International Relations           (9) -- all of IVd
 
  1. COLONIALISM
 
  2. FOREIGN INTERVENTION
 
  3. SPACE EXPLORATION
 
V. Omissions                          (10)
 
 
                       STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
 
We, the members  of the Libertarian  Party, challenge the cult  of the
omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
 
We hold that  all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion
over their own  lives, and have  the right to live  in whatever manner
they choose, so  long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal
right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
 
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite
principle, that the  State has the  right to dispose of  the lives  of
individuals and the  fruits of their  labor.  Even within  the  United
States, all political  parties other than  our own grant to government
the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of
their labor without their consent.
 
We, on the  contrary, deny the  right of any government  to  do  these
things, and hold  that where governments  exist, they must not violate
the rights of  any individual:  namely,  (1)  the  right  to  life  --
accordingly we support  the prohibition of  the initiation of physical
force against others; 

		Note the key word *initiation*.

(2) the right to liberty of speech and action --
accordingly we oppose  all  attempts  by  government  to  abridge  the
freedom of speech  and press, as  well as government censorship in any
form; and 

		This is pretty standard, and in no way implies that people are 
	to be shut out because they don't own a printing press or radio station.

(3)  the right to  property --  accordingly  we  oppose  all
government interference with  private property, such  as confiscation,
nationalization, and eminent  domain, and support  the prohibition  of
robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

		I'd support a clause about eminent domain being conditionally 
	ok as long as just compensation is made and it does not impose undue 
	hardship on those involved and the project *is* actually of benefit.
        	Note that this opens up a nice little debate about when 
	community good becomes individual good, and to what extent one becomes 
	greater than the other.

Since  governments,  when  instituted,  must  not  violate  individual
rights, we oppose  all interference by  government  in  the  areas  of
voluntary and contractual  relations among individuals.  People should
not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of
others.  They should  be left free  by government  to  deal  with  one
another as free  traders; and the  resultant economic system, the only
one compatible with  the protection of  individual rights, is the free
market.

		Hmmm.  What about usury?  What about unfair trade practices?  
	We don't need big brother looking over our shoulder telling us what is
	or is not a good deal, but there are benefits to setting minimum
	standards of conduct.  As an all-encompassing body, government provides
	the best pathway for setting up such a system (but operation is best 
	left to someone else :).
		So there are contracts, and there are contracts which take
	advantage of (infringe upon) people's rights.  Roads are a good
	corallary.  All may use them, but no one may use them to take 
	advantage of someone else.
 

                 I. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
 
No conflict exists  between civil order  and individual rights.   Both
concepts  are  based  on  the  same  fundamental  principle:  that  no
individual, group, or  government may initiate force against any other
individual, group, or government.
 
 
1. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
 
Members of the  Libertarian  Party  do  not  necessarily  advocate  or
condone any of  the practices our  policies  would  make  legal.   Our
exclusion of moral  approval and disapproval  is deliberate:  people's
rights must be recognized; the wisdom of any course of peaceful action
is  a  matter  for  the  acting  individual(s)  to  decide.   Personal
responsibility is discouraged  by society routinely denying the people
the opportunity to  exercise it.  Libertarian  policies will create  a
society where people  are free  to  make  and  learn  from  their  own
decisions.
 
2. CRIME
 
The continuing high  level of violent  crime -- and  the  government's
demonstrated inability  to  deal  with  it  --  threatens  the  lives,
happiness,  and  belongings   of  Americans.   At   the   same   time,
governmental violations of  rights undermine  the  people's  sense  of
justice with regard  to crime.  The  appropriate way to suppress crime
is through consistent  and impartial enforcement  of laws that protect
individual rights.  Laws  pertaining to "victimless  crimes" should be
repealed since such laws themselves violate individual rights and also
breed other types  of crime.  We  applaud  the  trend  toward  private
protection services and  voluntary community crime control groups.  We
support institutional changes,  consistent with full  respect for  the
rights of the  accused,  that  would  permit  victims  to  direct  the
prosecution in criminal cases.

		Note that this dose not preclude the citizens of a city
	deciding that the current police protection system is ok.  Merely that
	others may choose to create a new protection system. 
		Nor does this preclude the various systems from aiding each
	other, much like neighboring community fire systems aid each other.

3. VICTIMLESS CRIMES
 
Because only actions  that  infringe  on  the  rights  of  others  can
properly be termed  crimes, we favor the repeal of all federal, state,
and local laws  creating "crimes" without  victims.  In particular, we
advocate:
 
a.   the  repeal   of  all  laws  prohibiting  the  production,  sale,
possession, or  use  of  drugs,  and  of  all  medicinal  prescription
requirements  for  the   purchase  of  vitamins,  drugs,  and  similar
substances;

		Weeellll, you still need a method of determining if a drug is,
        in fact, beneficial and not a placebo or spurious.

b.  the repeal  of all laws restricting or prohibiting the use or sale
of alcohol, including  the imposition of  a minimum drinking age,  and
making bartenders or  hosts responsible for  the behavior of customers
and guests;

		When does someone become a full citizen, with full rights and
        responsibilities.  Under-18 laws make sense.  I agree that "supplier
	responsibility" laws are merely scapegoat hunting.

c.  the repeal  of all laws  or policies authorizing stopping  drivers
without probable cause to test for alcohol or drug use;

	Ditto for stopping them without probable cause for *any* reason.
 
d.  the repeal  of all laws  regarding  consensual  sexual  relations,
including prostitution and  solicitation, and the  cessation of  state
oppression and harassment  of homosexual men  and women, that they, at
last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;

		Good.  Once again the under-N laws make sense.  It is what 
	age needs to be N that is the question.
 
e.  the repeal  of all laws  regulating or prohibiting the possession,
use, sale, production,  or distribution of sexually explicit material,
independent  of  "socially   redeeming  value"  or   compliance   with
"community standards";

		I would support Under-N laws in this case also.
 
f.  the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling;

		Similar wrt commerce--you need to have minimum standards.
 
g.  the repeal  of anti-racketeering statutes  such as  the  Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which punish peaceful
behavior -- including  insider trading in securities, sale of sexually
explicit  material,  and   nonviolent  anti-abortion  protests  --  by
freezing assets of  the accused and  seizing assets of the  accused or
convicted; and

		Convicted, yes--with proof that they were obtained via illegal
	means and as long as they then went towards recompensing those who
	suffered.  (Insider trading, racketeering, etc.)

h.  the repeal  of all laws  interfering  with  the  right  to  commit
suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his
or her own life.

We demand the  use of executive pardon to free and exonerate all those
presently incarcerated or  ever convicted solely for the commission of
these "crimes."  We  condemn the wholesale  confiscation  of  property
prior to conviction by the state that all too often accompanies police
raids, searches, and prosecutions for victimless crimes.

Further, we recognize  that, often, the  Federal Government blackmails
states which refuse to comply with these laws by withholding funds and
we applaud those states which refuse to be so coerced.

		Yes!  Such blackmail is unconstitutional, but I've never seen a
	State with the balls to oppose the feds on this issue.

4. SAFEGUARDS FOR THE CRIMINALLY ACCUSED
 
Until such time as persons are proved guilty of crimes, they should be
accorded full respect  for  their  individual  rights.   We  are  thus
opposed to reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the
criminally accused.
 
We oppose labeling  cases as "civil" strictly to avoid the due process
protections of criminal  law and we  further oppose governmental civil
and criminal pretrial seizure of property for criminal offenses.
 
We oppose police  officers using excessive  force on the disorderly or
the criminally accused,  handing out what  they  may  consider  to  be
instant punishments on the streets, preventive detention, and no-knock
laws. Instant-punishment policies  deprive the  accused  of  important
checks on government  power -- juries  and the judicial  process.   We
oppose any concept  that some individuals  are by nature  second-class
citizens who only understand instant punishment and any claim that the
police possess special  insight into recognizing  persons in  need  of
punishment.
 
We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested,
indicted, tried, imprisoned,  or otherwise injured  in the  course  of
criminal  proceedings  against  them  that  do  not  result  in  their
conviction.  

		Ummm, only if the charges were found to be without basis.  I'd
	hate to see a murderer get paid for finding a technical loophole.

When they are responsible, government police employees or
agents should be liable for this restitution.

		*Responsible* officials.  Like the ones who order the illegal
	arrest, unjustified search warrant, or use force in detention.  Not the
	people carrying out their duties in a responsible fashion.
 
We call  for  a  reform  of  the  judicial  system  allowing  criminal
defendants and civil  parties to a court action a reasonable number of
peremptory challenges to proposed judges, similar to their right under
the present system to challenge a proposed juror.
 
5. JUSTICE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
 
The  present  system  of  criminal  law  is  based  almost  solely  on
punishment with little concern for the victim.  We support restitution
for the victim  to the fullest  degree possible at the  expense of the
criminal or wrongdoer.

		Good.  Although "fullest degree possible" needs clarification.
 
We oppose the  prosecution of individuals  for exercising their rights
of self-defense.
 
We oppose all  "no-fault" insurance laws,  which deprive the victim of
the right to  recover damages from  those responsible in the  case  of
injury.  We also  support the  right  of  the  victim  to  pardon  the
criminal or wrongdoer, barring threats to the victim for this purpose.
 We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutually
acceptable judges.
 
We support a  change in rape  laws so that cohabitation will no longer
be a defense against a charge of rape.

---
end of part 1.

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18297 alt.politics.elections:953 sci.econ:3768