Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Libertarian Platform, Part 2 of 10
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:43:39 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


Part 2
------------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (for part 2)
 
  6. JURIES                                (2)
 
  7. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY                (2)
 
  8. GOVERNMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH          (2)
 
  9. FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION              (2)
 
  10. FREEDOM OF RELIGION                  (2)
 
 
6. JURIES
 
We  oppose  the  current  practice  of  forced  jury  duty  and  favor
all-volunteer juries. In  addition,  we  urge  the  assertion  of  the
common-law right of  juries to judge  not only the facts  but also the
justice of the  law. In all  cases to which the government is a party,
the judge should  be required to inform the jurors of their common law
right to judge the law, as well as the facts, and to acquit a criminal
defendant, and to  find against  the  government  in  a  civil  trial,
whenever they deem the law unjust or oppressive.

		I disagree with the expanded duties of the jury.  A jury is to
	determine the guilt of a defendent.  It is up to the legislature to
	make law and up to the judiciary to review the law.  Having a jury
	decide on matters of law violates the enumerated powers of government.
 
7. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
 
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights --
life, liberty, and  justly acquired property  --  against  aggression,
whether by force  or fraud.  This right inheres in the individual, who
-- with his  or her consent -- may be aided by any other individual or
group.
 
The right of  defense extends to  defense against aggressive  acts  of
government.  We favor  an immediate end  to the doctrine of "Sovereign
Immunity" which  ignores  the  primacy  of  the  individual  over  the
abstraction of the  State, and holds  that the State, contrary  to the
tradition of redress  of grievances,  may  not  be  sued  without  its
permission or held accountable for its actions under civil law.
 
8. GOVERNMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH
 
We oppose the  involuntary commitment of  any person to or involuntary
treatment in a mental institution.
 
We advocate an  immediate end to  the spending of tax  money  for  any
program of  psychiatric,  psychological,  or  behavioral  research  or
treatment.

		Why single out psych* sciences?  Why the stance against
	research?  What about voluntary acceptence of psych* treatment?
		Are there scientolgists lurking in the shadows? :\
 
We favor an  end to the  acceptance  of  criminal  defenses  based  on
"insanity" or "diminished  capacity" which absolve the guilty of their
responsibility when criminal intent is shown.

		How are we to determine when criminal intent appears?  Should
	an "insane" person who is "cured" serve the rest of their life in jail? 
	I don't think so.  Also, I think the standards of insanity as a defense
	should be upgraded.  Simply stating that "only an insane person would
	do this" is not enough.  There must be supporting evidence.

9. FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION
 
We defend the  rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech
and freedom of  the press and  guarantee the right of  individuals  to
dissent from government  itself.  We recognize  that full  freedom  of
expression is possible  only as part  of a  system  of  full  property
rights.  The freedom  to use one's  own voice; the freedom  to hire  a
hall; the freedom  to own a printing press, a broadcasting station, or
a transmission cable;  the freedom to wave or burn one's own flag; and
similar property-based freedoms  are precisely what constitute freedom
of communication.  At  the same time,  we recognize  that  freedom  of
communication does not extend to the use of other people's property to
promote one's ideas without the voluntary consent of the owners.
 
We oppose any  abridgment of the  freedom of speech through government
censorship, regulation or  control of communications media, including,
but not limited to, laws concerning:
 
-- Obscenity, including  "pornography", as  we  hold  this  to  be  an
abridgment of liberty  of expression despite claims that it instigates
rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;
 
-- Reception  and  storage  equipment,  such  as  digital  audio  tape
recorders and radar  warning devices, and  the  manufacture  of  video
terminals by telephone companies;
 
-- Electronic bulletin  boards,  communications  networks,  and  other
interactive electronic media  as we hold  them to  be  the  functional
equivalent of speaking  halls and  printing  presses  in  the  age  of
electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;
 
-- Electronic newspapers,  electronic "Yellow Pages",  and  other  new
information media, as these deserve full freedom.
 
-- Commercial speech or advertising.
 
We oppose speech  codes at all  schools that are primarily tax funded.
Language that is deemed offensive to certain groups is not a cause for
legal action.
 
We favor the  abolition of the Federal Communications Commission as we
would provide  for  free  market  ownership  of  airwave  frequencies,
deserving of full First Amendment protection.

		Unworkable.  The guy with the biggest transmitter wins.
 
We oppose government  ownership or subsidy  of, or  funding  for,  any
communications organization.
 
We strongly oppose  the government's burgeoning  practice of  invading
newsrooms, or the  premises of other  innocent third parties,  in  the
name of law  enforcement. We further  oppose court orders gagging news
coverage of criminal proceedings -- the right to publish and broadcast
must not be  abridged merely  for  the  convenience  of  the  judicial
system.  We deplore  any efforts to  impose  thought  control  on  the
media, either  by  the  use  of  anti-trust  laws,  or  by  any  other
government action in the name of stopping "bias."
 
Removal of all  of these  regulations  and  practices  throughout  the
communications media would  open the way  to diversity and innovation.
We shall not  be satisfied until  the First Amendment is  expanded  to
protect full, unconditional freedom of communication.

		Speech differs from "communication".  The two words are not
	interchangable.  Some government (minimal) regulation is necessary to
	prevent frequency wars.  In addition, certain types of speech need to
	be regulated: inciting to riot, inciting panic, etc.

 
10. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
 
We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any
religious activities that  do not violate  the rights of  others.   In
order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and
State.  We oppose  government actions that  either aid or  attack  any
religion.  We oppose  taxation of church  property for the same reason
that we oppose all taxation.
 
We condemn the  attempts by parents  or any others -- via kidnappings,
conservatorships,  or  instruction   under  confinement  --  to  force
children to conform  to their parents' or any others' religious views.
Government  harassment  or  obstruction  of  unconventional  religious
groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.

		I'd also state that religions should operate under the same
	restrictions/obligations as any other group or organization.  That
	religions be held liable for actions that cause harm to others and for
	actions that infringe upon the rights of others.

------
end of part 2

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism