From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: Libertarian definition.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:18:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.143952.12547@bnr.ca>, stu5s33@bnr.ca (Robert Nychka) 
writes:

>Could anybody tell me what the platform of the Libertarian party is, and 
>exactly what it means ?
>
>How does it differ from Laissez-faire capitalism ?

First, let me distinguish "Libertarian" from "libertarian".  "Libertarian" 
refers to the political party, or an individual associated with the 
political party.  "libertarian" refers to an individual who supports the 
idea of liberty, but is not necessarily associated with or sympathetic 
toward the "Libertarian" party.  Two different, distinct animals.

The official tenet of the "Libertarian" party is that they are against 
the INITIAL use of force against others.  In fact, to become a "card 
carrying member" of the party, one must sign a statement affirming their 
support for the aforementioned position.

In general, I think "libertarians" also support the non-initial use of 
force.  I am not aware of how a "libertarian" could possibly support the 
initial use of force against another individual.

It is my belief that the "Libertarian" party platform generally supports a 
return to the U. S. Constitution as originally drafted.  That means no 
sixteenth amendment (bye-bye uneven apportionment of taxes among the 
several states [re: IRS]), no seventeenth amendment (return selection of 
Senators to the state legislatures).  However, amendments that address 
holes in items such as presidential succession would be appropriate to 
keep.  I'm not sure the party has a firm stand on items such as abortion, 
though I believe a significant number of "Libertarians" are pro-choice.  
NOTE THAT I HAVE SAID "I BELIEVE" in this paragraph.  I am not an official 
of the Libertarian party.  The actual party line may be different.

Followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy tend to be "libertarian", 
though not all "libertarians" are objectivists; some "libertarians" 
support some levels of control over individuals from government.  
Objectivism rejects the concept of absolute anarchy on the basis that it 
evolves quickly into a situation of coercive rule.  In the past, it is my 
understanding that the Libertarian party was much closer to the concept of 
absolute anarchy than it is today; on that basis, objectivism rejected the 
Libertarian party.

"libertarians" generally support laissez-faire capitalism, as do 
"Libertarians" and objectivists.  (More common ground?!  How can THAT 
be?!)  That does NOT mean that a business can coerce others.  Under 
laissez-faire capitalism, individuals engage in business by choice, 
without force and without harming another's property.

On the basis of objectivist philosophy, the philosophy of John Locke from 
his "Second Treatise on Civil Government" (~1690), and other notables, the 
proper role of government is the use of force for the protection of the 
rights of individuals.  This is accomplished through the police, the court 
system, and the military (from external force).

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY VIEWS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Newsgroups: alt.individualism