View Full Version : How/why Liberals Attack Free Speech
The Liberal Assault on Freedom of Speech
Thomas G. West
Thomas G. West is a professor of politics at the University of Dallas, and a member of the board of directors and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He received a B.A. at Cornell in 1967, a Ph.D. in Government at the Claremont Graduate School in 1974, and served in Vietnam as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army in 1969-70. Among his several books are Plato’s Apology of Socrates: An Interpretation with a New Translation, Four Texts on Socrates (with Grace Starry West), and Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America, which won the Bagehot Council’s 2000 Paolucci Book Award for the best book in American history and politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College national leadership seminar in Palm Springs, California, on February 18, 2003. It has been updated to address last month’s Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Liberal Assault on Freedom of Speech
America has less freedom of speech today than it has ever had in its history. Yet it is widely believed that it has more. Liberal law professor Archibald Cox has written: “The body of law presently defining First Amendment liberties” grew out of a “continual expansion of individual freedom of expression.” Conservative constitutional scholar Walter Berns agrees: “Legally we enjoy a greater liberty [of speech] than ever before in our history.” Both are wrong.
Liberals and libertarians applaud what Cox, Berns, and others perceive as an expansion of free speech. Conservatives sometimes deplore it, rightly assuming that the expansion in question leads to greater scope for nude dancers, pornographers and flag burners. But from the point of view of the original meaning of free speech, our speech today is much less free than it was in the early republic.
Campaign Finance Regulation
In 1974, for the first time in American history, amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) made it illegal in some circumstances for Americans to publish their opinions about candidates for election. Citizens and organizations who “coordinate” with a candidate for public office were prohibited from spending more than a set amount of money to publish arguments for or against a candidate. Those who “coordinate” with a candidate are his friends and supporters. In other words, publication was forbidden to those with the greatest interest in campaigns and those most likely to want to spend money publishing on behalf of candidates.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 goes well beyond the 1974 law, imposing substantial limits on the right of political parties and nonprofit organizations to publicize their views on candidates during election campaigns. Imagine the shock of the Founders if they were here to see that government was heavily into the business of banning private citizens from pooling their fortunes to publicize their opinions about candidates for elections.
These laws do contain a notable exception. Newspaper owners may spend as much money as they wish publishing arguments in support of candidates with whom they “coordinate.” This solitary exemption from restrictions on free speech is, of course, no mistake: The dominant newspapers in America are liberal, and the 1974 law was passed by a Democratic Congress on the day before Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace from the presidency.
Campaign finance regulation stands in direct opposition to the Founders’ understanding of the First Amendment. For a large class of people, it effectively prohibits and punishes the most important thing that the right to free speech is supposed to guarantee: open discussion of candidates and issues at election time.
Those who favor campaign finance regulation sometimes claim that their primary concern is with “corruption and the appearance of corruption” – that is, what used to be called bribery or the appearance of bribery. But that is not the real agenda of the reformers. There is a good reason why the 2002 Act, like the 1974 law, was voted for by almost every House and Senate Democrat, and opposed by a large majority of Republicans: These laws are primarily about limiting the speech of conservatives.
Here are some quotations from the 2002 congressional debate:
Sen. Maria Cantwell (Dem.-Wash.): “This bill is about slowing the ad war. . . . It is about slowing political advertising and making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (Dem.-Calif.): “These so-called issues ads are not regulated at all and mention candidates by name. They directly attack candidates without any accountability. It is brutal. . . . We have an opportunity in the McCain-Feingold bill to stop that.”
Sen. Paul Wellstone (Dem.- Minn.): “I think these issue advocacy ads are a nightmare. I think all of us should hate them… . [By passing the legislation], [w]e could get some of this poison politics off television.”
In other words, the law makes it harder for citizens to criticize liberal politicians when they disagree with their policy views.
Some congressmen were willing to be even more open about the fact that the new law would cut down on conservative criticism of candidates. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Dem.-Ill.) said: “If my colleagues care about gun control, then campaign finance is their issue so that the NRA does not call the shots.” Democratic Reps. Marty Meehan (Mass.) and Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), and Democratic Sens. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) also cited the National Rifle Association’s political communications as a problem that the Act would solve. Several liberal Republicans chimed in.
What this means is that government is now in the business of silencing citizens who believe in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Sen. Jim Jeffords (Ind.-Vt.) said that issue ads “are obviously pointed at positions that are taken by you, saying how horrible they are.” “Negative advertising is the crack cocaine of politics,” added Sen. Tom Daschle (Dem.-S.D.). What these quotations show – and there are many more like them – is that the purpose of campaign finance regulation is to make it harder for conservatives to present their views to the public about candidates and issues in elections.
In its shocking December 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the five most liberal members of the Supreme Court upheld this law and saw no conflict with the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press. Yet it is impossible to imagine a more obvious violation of the First Amendment, unless the government were explicitly to authorize the Federal Election Commission to close down conservative newspapers and magazines. In his powerful dissent in the McConnell case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:
The chilling endpoint of the Court’s reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press. None . . . of the reasoning employed by the Court exempts the press. . . . What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is ‘too influential,’ and that the ‘appearance of corruption’ is significant when media organizations endorse candidates or run ‘slanted’ or ‘biased’ news stories in favor of candidates or parties? Or, even easier, what is to stop a future Congress from concluding that the availability of unregulated media corporations creates a loophole that allows for easy ‘circumvention’ of the limitations of the current campaign finance laws?
With the National Rifle Association announcement that it intends to acquire a media outlet in order to get around Congress’s unconstitutional restrictions on issue ads during elections, Justice Thomas’s nightmare might come true even sooner than he anticipated. We are already hearing statements suggesting that any media owned by the NRA will not count as “real” media. At some point, perhaps in the very near future, the Federal Election Commission may find itself deciding which newspapers and broadcast stations are “real” news media (and can therefore be permitted their First Amendment rights) and which ones are “slanted” or “biased” (thus whose First Amendment rights must be denied).
Censorship Through Broadcast Licensing
Reading today’s scholarship on freedom of speech, one would hardly guess that government control over the content of speech through licensing requirements – supposedly outlawed long ago – is alive and well. The amazing ignorance with which this matter is usually discussed today may be seen in the following quote from legal scholar Benno Schmidt, the former president of Yale:
The First Amendment tolerates virtually no prior restraints [on speech or the press]. This doctrine is one of the central principles of our law of freedom of the press. . . . [T]he doctrine is presumably an absolute bar to any wholesale system of administrative licensing or censorship of the press, which is the most repellent form of government suppression of expression. . . .”
Schmidt fails to notice that every radio, television, and cable broadcaster in America is subject to a “wholesale system of administrative licensing,” i.e., the “most repellent form of government suppression of expression.”
Broadcasters have to obtain a license from the Federal Communications Commission. Stations receive licenses only when the FCC judges it to be “in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.” Licenses are granted for a limited period, and the FCC may choose not to renew. The FCC has never defined what the “public interest” means. In the past, it preferred a case-by-case approach, which has been called “regulation by raised eyebrow.”
During most of its history, the FCC consistently favored broadcasters who shared the views of government officials, and disfavored broadcasters who did not.
The first instance of serious and pervasive political censorship was initiated by Franklin Roosevelt’s FCC in the 1930s. The Yankee Radio network in New England frequently editorialized against Roosevelt. The FCC asked Yankee to provide details about its programming. Sensing the drift, Yankee immediately stopped broadcasting editorials in 1938. In order to drive its point home, the FCC found Yankee deficient at license renewal time. They announced,
Radio can serve as an instrument of democracy only when devoted to the communication of information and exchange of ideas fairly and objectively presented. . . . It cannot be devoted to the support of principles he [the broadcaster] happens to regard most favorably. . . .
In other words, if you want your broadcasting license renewed, stop criticizing Roosevelt.
The FCC soon afterwards made exclusion of “partisan” content a requirement for all broadcasters. It was understood, of course, that radio stations would continue to carry such supposedly “nonpartisan” fare as presidential speeches and “fireside chats” attacking Republicans and calling for expansions of the New Deal. In the name of “democracy,” “fairness” and “objectivity,” the FCC would no longer permit stations to engage in sustained criticism of Roosevelt’s speeches and programs.
In 1949, the FCC announced its Fairness Doctrine. Broadcasters were required “to provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues . . . and . . . a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues.” In practice, the Fairness Doctrine only worked in one direction: against conservatives.
During the Republican Eisenhower years, the FCC paid little attention to broadcasting content, and a number of conservative radio stations emerged. After John Kennedy was elected in 1960, his administration went on the offensive against them. Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Bill Ruder, later admitted, “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
This strategy was highly successful. Hundreds of radio stations cancelled conservative shows that they had been broadcasting. The FCC revoked the license of one radio station, WXUR of Media, Pennsylvania, a tiny conservative Christian broadcaster. When WXUR appealed to the courts, one dissenting judge noted “that the public has lost access to information and ideas . . . as a result of this doctrinal sledge-hammer [i.e., the Fairness Doctrine].” The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. It saw no free speech violation in the government shutdown of a radio station for broadcasting conservative ideas.
The government also revoked the license of a television station in Jackson, Mississippi. WLTB was unapologetically and openly opposed to federal civil rights policies at the time, and would introduce NBC’s news reports with this warning: “What you are about to see is an example of biased, managed, Northern news. Be sure to stay tuned at 7:25 to hear your local newscast.” The D.C. Circuit Court ordered the FCC to revoke WLTB’s license. In an outrageous opinion authored by Warren Burger, who was shortly afterward appointed by President Nixon as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court demanded in indignant tones that WLTB’s owner be silenced: “After nearly five decades of operation, the broadcast industry does not seem to have grasped the simple fact that a broadcast license is a public trust subject to termination for breach of duty.” Again, the Supreme Court refused to hear the station’s appeal.
Conservatives tried to use the Fairness Doctrine as well, but failed in every case. Liberal author Fred Friendly writes, “After virtually every controversial program [on the major TV networks] – ‘Harvest of Shame,’ . . . ‘Hunger in America’ [1960s programs advocating liberal anti-poverty policies] – fairness complaints were filed, and the FCC rejected them all. As FCC general counsel Henry Geller explained, ‘We just weren’t going to get trapped into determining journalistic judgments. . . .’” In other words, when liberals were on the air, the FCC called it journalism. When conservatives were on the air, the FCC called it partisan and political, and insisted that the liberal point of view be given equal time.
In the 1980s, President Reagan appointed a majority to the Federal Communications Commission, and it abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The effect was dramatic. Immediately, conservative talk radio blossomed. Rush Limbaugh was the biggest winner. He came along at just the moment when, for the first time since the 1950s, stations could be confident that conservative broadcasting would no longer lead to license renewal problems or Fairness Doctrine complaints and litigation.
The end of the Fairness Doctrine was a tremendous victory for the First Amendment. But it does not mean that broadcast media are now free. The authority of the FCC over broadcasters remains in place. It can be brought back with the full partisan force of the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations as soon as one party gets control over all three branches of the federal government and chooses to do so.
Harassment Law
For about 25 years, government has required businesses and educational institutions to punish speech that can be characterized as “hostile environment” harassment. This standard is so vague that the question of what constitutes a “hostile working environment” is endlessly litigated. One court ordered employees to “refrain from any racial, religious, ethnic, or other remarks or slurs contrary to their fellow employees’ religious beliefs.” Another court banned “all offensive conduct and speech implicating considerations of race.” Of course, there are some who find any criticism of affirmative action offensive, even racist. Others are offended when someone alludes to his own religious convictions. So this policy, in effect, makes it potentially illegal for employees to say anything about their own religious beliefs or to defend the “wrong” kind of political opinions. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has cited a headline in a major business magazine that sums up this denial of free speech in the workplace: “Watch What You Say, or Be Ready to Pay.”
The Founders’ Approach
Let us turn to the original meaning of free speech in the Constitution to see how far we have abandoned the original meaning of that document.
The Declaration of Independence calls liberty an inalienable right with which we are “endowed by our Creator.” As human beings are born free in all respects, they are also born free to speak, write and publish.
Nevertheless, although all human beings possess the same natural right to liberty, the Founders believed there is a law of nature that teaches us that no one has the right to injure another. The most obvious kind of injurious speech is personal libel. Here is a quotation from an early libel case:
[T]he heart of the libeller . . . is more dark and base than . . . his who commits a midnight arson. . . . [T]he injuries which are done to character and reputation seldom can be cured, and the most innocent man may, in a moment, be deprived of his good name, upon which, perhaps, he depends for all the prosperity, and all the happiness of his life.
But the Founders knew very well that allowing government to punish abuses of speech is potentially dangerous to legitimate free speech. So they relied on three pillars to secure this right of free speech while setting limits on injurious speech.
First, no speech could be prohibited by government except that which is clearly injurious. Today, as we have seen, noninjurious political and religious speech is routinely prohibited and punished through campaign finance and other laws.
Second, there could be no prior restraint of speech. Government was not permitted to withhold permission to publish if it disapproved of a publisher or his views. Today, the media from which most Americans get their news is subject to a government licensing scheme that is strikingly similar to the system by which England’s kings kept the press in line in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Third, injurious speech had to be defined in law, and punishment of it could only be accomplished by due process of law. Guilt or liability could be established only by juries – that is, by people who are not government officials. Today, clear legal standards, formal prosecutions and juries are mostly avoided in the convoluted censorship schemes employed by government in broadcasting law, campaign finance law, harassment law and the like.
As an aside, I mention one other area where the dominant view today is opposed to the older view. The Founders viewed prohibition of obscene or pornographic materials in the same light as the regulation of, e.g., sexual behavior and public nudity. Sex is by its nature connected to children. The political community cannot be indifferent to whether and how children, its future citizens, are generated and raised. That is why the laws prohibited or discouraged nonmarital sex such as premarital sex, homosexuality and adultery. Obscene words or pictures were banned because they tended to promote the idea of sex apart from marriage and children, dehumanizing sex by making men and women into “sex objects.”
Today’s Liberal View
Why have liberals rejected the Founders’ idea of free speech?
The Founders looked toward a society in which each person’s right to life, liberty, property, free exercise of religion, and pursuit of happiness would be protected by government. Except for sex, marriage, and other matters connected with the generation of children, and injuries to persons or property, government would be mostly indifferent to the manner in which citizens lived their private lives. Laws would protect everyone’s rights equally, but it was understood that equal rights lead to unequal results, because of differences in talent, character and luck. About a century ago, liberals began to argue that the Founders’ view, which is embodied in the Constitution, is unjust in two ways.
First, they argued that by protecting everyone’s property equally, government in effect sides with the rich against the poor. It protects the rich and leaves the poor open to oppression. It is not enough, in the liberal view, for government to be neutral between business and labor, between men and women, between whites and racial minorities, and so on. In each case, liberals say, justice requires that government must put burdens on the rich and powerful and give special advantages to the weak and vulnerable.
Applied to free speech, the liberal view leads to the conclusion that government must limit spending by those who can afford to publish or broadcast their views. As University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein writes, the traditional autonomy of newspapers “may itself be an abridgment of the free speech right.” Government interference with broadcasting content through FCC licensing is from this standpoint a positive good for free speech. Without it, rich white males will dominate, and the poor, women and minorities will be marginalized and silenced. Therefore, in the liberal view, speech rights must be redistributed from the rich and privileged to the poor and excluded.
University of Maryland professor Mark Graber endorses this view: “Affluent Americans,” he writes, “have no First Amendment right that permits them to achieve political success through constant repetition of relatively unwanted ideas.” In other words, if you publish or broadcast “too much,” government has the right, and the duty, to silence you. Yale law professor Stephen Carter agrees: “Left unregulated, the modern media could present serious threats to democracy.” Sunstein calls for a “New Deal for Speech,” in which government will treat speech in exactly the same way as it already treats property, namely, as something that is really owned by government, and which citizens are only permitted to use or engage in when they meet conditions established by government to promote fairness and justice.
Arguments like these are the deepest reason that liberals no longer follow the Constitution, and why Americans today no longer know what the free speech clause really means.
One might raise the objection that these are only law professors. But their view turns out to be squarely in the mainstream. Several candidates for the presidency in 2000 from both political parties (but not George W. Bush) called for much more stringent limitations on free speech in the name of campaign finance reform. One of those candidates, Bill Bradley, proposed a constitutional amendment in 1996 that would have repealed the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Dick Gephardt, the former minority leader of the House of Representatives, has made the same proposal. In the end, even President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
I am reminded by this of Abraham Lincoln’s remark in the 1850s about those who would read blacks out of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: If that view is to prevail, why not move to Russia, he asked, where we can take our despotism unalloyed? Liberals today are on the verge of throwing off all pretense and admitting openly that what they mean by equality is the abolition of liberty.
There is a second reason that today’s liberals see the Founders’ view of free speech as oppressive. The Founders’ regulation of sexually explicit and obscene pictures and words, they believe – like any interference in the sex lives of citizens – stands in the way of the most important meaning of liberty. People must be permitted, in this view, to establish their own way of life and engage in whatever kind of sex they please. A famous passage from a Supreme Court pro-abortion decision sums up this liberal view. It reads, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
The Founders would have replied that we are precisely not free to define our own concept of existence and meaning. God and nature have established the “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” which have already defined it for us. Human beings, Jefferson wrote, are “inherently independent of all but moral law.” If men defy that law, they are not free. They are slaves, at first to their own passions, eventually to political tyranny. For men who cannot govern their own passions cannot sustain a democratic government.
Our task today is to recover the cause of constitutionalism. In doing so, the recovery of a proper understanding and respect for free speech must be a high priority.
I was going to read all of this, but since this is the first line -
America has less freedom of speech today than it has ever had in its history
it seems rather pointless. In what way did black/native americans have more freedom of speech pre-1970?
It then goes onto to say the rich should be able to buy elections. This gives more freedom and representation to people on more modest incomes, how?
Finally it imposes rules on us from some imaginary friend called "god". Is that the Muslim god? Hindu god? How about american indian gods? 100% of americans do not believe in the god cited and therefore it has no place in law. I also seem to recall something about seperation of church and state?
MagicNakor
01-16-2004, 05:24 PM
Ugh. That is certainly going to have to wait until morning to be slogged through.
:ninja:
Rat Faced
01-16-2004, 06:52 PM
As its from an "Emminent University Professor" and i dont believe in it i think i'll skip the whole thing and say I dont believe it.
Much like some did to my "Emminent University Professor" s in the Global Warming Thread :P
On the other hand i may read it later if i can work up the energy ;)
internet.news
01-16-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@16 January 2004 - 19:52
As its from an "Emminent University Professor" and i dont believe in it i think i'll skip the whole thing and say I dont believe it.
Much like some did to my "Emminent University Professor" s in the Global Warming Thread :P
On the other hand i may read it later if i can work up the energy ;)
I would completely read it later maybe...
interesting - Free sharing for all! - interesting...
Wizard_Mon1
01-16-2004, 07:15 PM
I read half way then got bored
Whats the point of this article, is it to show that america is getting out of control an even the philosophical backbones of america are crumbling.
The land of hope and glory gives us little hope and a cheap glory.
Well good luck to the world, what with global warming, nuclear weapons, terrorists threats, poverty, famine and death in the third world lots of other terrible events.
This is not an arguement, i just hope there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Does anyone have any good news? Why is it always so depressing. :(
vidcc
01-16-2004, 07:19 PM
in the long process of trying to read the article and stopping my 5 year old who has a day off school from dismantaling my 6 month old a few things seem to stick in my mind.
the America and indeed the world the founders lived in is very different to the present day. The article seems to suggest that the founders words were set in stone.
Bush who could in no way be considered a liberal is just as guilty of twisting the constitution as anyone has ever been (this is no an attack on Bush but a point that it's not just liberals that "oppose" free speech).
one thing i find distasteful about our campaign system with all the financial contributions is that those contributions could be viewed as "bribes". The race to the whitehouse should be purely on issues and policies about those issues...NOT whoever has the best publicity machine. So in one way the arguement to allow that sort of advertising is supressing free speech for all but the holders of wealth.
I am not going to touch any of the "god/nature laws" issues because you know my views on that and you also know i respect your views on it.
One point though about the words of Jefferson "For men who cannot govern their own passions cannot sustain a democratic government." One could argue that Clinton fell into the catergory of someone not able to control his passions but lets face it, agree with his policies or not, the man basically did a good job of running the country. I know you could probably quote a few things that he got wrong however look at the financial state of America before he took office and when he left....then look at it now. He was also a good leader for the enviroment and for the general American citizen. Mostly (not in all cases i hasten to add) the average American benefitted from this man that "couldn't keep his zipper done up"
My whole point is that the founders set good "foundations" but to blindly stick to those foundations and not build on them is prohibiting progress
Rat Faced
01-16-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@16 January 2004 - 19:15
Does anyone have any good news? Why is it always so depressing. :(
I got a pay rise, backdated to August. :)
On the other hand, once my ex got her "Cut" in maintainance, and the Legal Aid people got their cut....my Net Pay is down :blink:
Maybe i should just not bother and sign on the dole. :lol: :lol:
Wizard_Mon1
01-16-2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced+16 January 2004 - 19:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 16 January 2004 - 19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@16 January 2004 - 19:15
Does anyone have any good news? Why is it always so depressing. :(
I got a pay rise, backdated to August. :)
On the other hand, once my ex got her "Cut" in maintainance, and the Legal Aid people got their cut....my Net Pay is down :blink:
Maybe i should just not bother and sign on the dole. :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
apparently it takes a month to get on the dole and you need to fill in four days worth of mindless paperwork.
so i guess life is not easy even if you take teh easy way out :) :frusty:
*edit - congrats on the rise :)
clocker
01-17-2004, 12:59 AM
Because I respect you J2, I read the article in it's entirety, although at several points I felt strong warning twinges.
Thomas G. West is a professor of politics at the University of Dallas, and a member of the board of directors and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute
The Claremont Institute (http://www.au.org/clarmont.htm)
Liberal author Fred Friendly
Fred Friendly (http://www.pbs.org/fredfriendly/ourgenes/about.html)
etc.,etc.
And your take on this article is?
I'm not interested in a cut-and-paste war here ( although there may be others who feel differently), your use of the article with no comment however, leads me to believe that you endorse the contents without reservation.
Yes?
3RA1N1AC
01-17-2004, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by article
In 1974, for the first time in American history, amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) made it illegal in some circumstances for Americans to publish their opinions about candidates for election. Citizens and organizations who “coordinate” with a candidate for public office were prohibited from spending more than a set amount of money to publish arguments for or against a candidate. Those who “coordinate” with a candidate are his friends and supporters. In other words, publication was forbidden to those with the greatest interest in campaigns and those most likely to want to spend money publishing on behalf of candidates.
so... the point at which it's illegal to publish one's opinion is after one has already published his opinion? what a shame. at the risk of sounding like an anti-free-speech liberal, i think it isn't such a bad thing that only a certain amount of money may be spent for advertising on a candidate's behalf. if there were no limits at all, might it not simply become a matter of buying an elected office by out-advertising the opponent?
'course, it isn't always purely a matter of campaign spending. several years ago, a texas businessman named michael huffington came to california and spent a large sum of money (including somewhere between $25 million and $30 million out of his own pocket), trying to buy a seat in congress in a race against a local incumbent, and failed. i think that ill-conceived run for office might've been his wife's idea though, since he's rightly faded from the spotlight and she's been all over the television ever since. but god forbid such foolish examples of "free speech" be muzzled, or that they don't find loopholes around spending rules like slush and soft money.
Originally posted by clocker@16 January 2004 - 20:59
Because I respect you J2, I read the article in it's entirety, although at several points I felt strong warning twinges.
Thomas G. West is a professor of politics at the University of Dallas, and a member of the board of directors and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute
The Claremont Institute (http://www.au.org/clarmont.htm)
Liberal author Fred Friendly
Fred Friendly (http://www.pbs.org/fredfriendly/ourgenes/about.html)
etc.,etc.
And your take on this article is?
I'm not interested in a cut-and-paste war here ( although there may be others who feel differently), your use of the article with no comment however, leads me to believe that you endorse the contents without reservation.
Yes?
I guess at this point what I'm most interested in is whether there is any agreement on the general point:
Is free speech being stifled, and; Are liberals behind the effort?
I continually get the idea from all, or almost all, here, that, yes-there is an attempt to stifle free speech, but it is the Republicans who are behind it.
For example:
I know I bang on at length on occasion about such things as abortion, vis a vis Planned Parenthood, etc., and my view that they seek a judicial silencing of opposing view-points, and that their efforts to do so thus constitute a circumventing of state's rights issues as well as any referendum that would allow the people's voice to be heard.
If, as many of you postulate, it is true that a solid majority of people favor an absolute and unconditional right to abortion, why shy from a referendum? Why the immediate and automatic rush to seek judicial remedy?
As to state's rights:
They still exist, at least constitutionally, yes?
Before the Supremes began to overstep (long, long ago, but for purposes here, let us say Roe v. Wade) the states would have retained the right to decide the issue themselves, with the effect of possibly creating a legal checkerboard of rights, and it may have come to pass that a citizen would have been responsible for keeping him-or herself apprised of what rights existed where they live, instead of the willy-nilly propagation of rights, which leads to the dis-or unengaged citizenry we currently have.
These are the seeds of ignorance.
If we agree on nothing else, may we agree most of the Tuesday lever-pullers are ignoramuses, or that to a large degree we have this condition to thank for the inexcusable voter-apathy in this country?
I find myself, in cynical moments, wishing voters could be means-tested, but please believe me when I say I wish people were not so conditioned by the system to a state of bovine ignorance they don't even know where their polling place is.
Now, I tip my hat to you, Clocker, as you are the only responder to my post who even claims to have read the whole post.
The others all make excuses; to this I would reply that you are in the WORLD EVENTS section, and this is not the place to brandish a lack of attention-span.
I fully realize the hardship (for lack of a better word) presented by the length of such a post, but there is a method to my madness, and I don't think, at this juncture, I should have to explain what it is.
It is analagous to another situation:
Many here who rail against the United States and what they regard as our greed and voracious consumerism suffer an absolute failure to understand any of the concepts, theories, or facts of capitalism.
There is a textbook on the subject; it appears in novel form:
"Atlas Shrugged", by the author Ayn Rand.
I've read it, and it is a definite bear to read; well over a thousand pages-a daunting task-and written in somewhat dense prose, but anyone who dares will come away with an understanding of capitalism, and those who merely think they know capitalism and it's reasoning and logic will certainly be relieved of their ignorance.
Bottom line, the Ayn Rand reader may not be convinced, but they would know whereof they speak, and also gain a much-needed understanding of the inherencies of the U.S.
I don't appreciate continually having to read tomes from a CRT myself, but as your token conservative, I have a felt need to make myself insufferable at times, as you well know.
If any of you are still reading, I will take a moment to apologize for the preceding rant (for that is what it was) and offer a blanket amnesty to all non-readers, much as our President has seen fit to commit a similar act of total and utter idiocy with regard to the flood-tide of immigrants from the south.
Anyway, developments such as those enumerated in my post will surely not aid in remedying any of the problems (politicians) facing us.
My sincere apologies to those apathetic souls who think everything is hunky-dory in the good old U.S. of A., And I hope my flagging popularity here doesn't suffer too badly in light of my ongoing, um.....prickliness.
:)
Yes, I mean it sincerely!
:)
;)
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+16 January 2004 - 22:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 16 January 2004 - 22:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 January 2004 - 09:05
In 1974, for the first time in American history, amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) made it illegal in some circumstances for Americans to publish their opinions about candidates for election. Citizens and organizations who “coordinate” with a candidate for public office were prohibited from spending more than a set amount of money to publish arguments for or against a candidate. Those who “coordinate” with a candidate are his friends and supporters. In other words, publication was forbidden to those with the greatest interest in campaigns and those most likely to want to spend money publishing on behalf of candidates.
so... the point at which it's illegal to publish one's opinion is after one has already published his opinion? what a shame. at the risk of sounding like an anti-free-speech liberal, i think it isn't such a bad thing that only a certain amount of money may be spent for advertising on a candidate's behalf. if there were no limits at all, might it not simply become a matter of buying an elected office by out-advertising the opponent?
'course, it isn't always purely a matter of campaign spending. several years ago, a texas businessman named michael huffington came to california and spent a large sum of money (including somewhere between $25 million and $30 million out of his own pocket), trying to buy a seat in congress in a race against a local incumbent, and failed. i think that ill-conceived run for office might've been his wife's idea though, since he's rightly faded from the spotlight and she's been all over the television ever since. but god forbid such foolish examples of "free speech" be muzzled, or that they don't find loopholes around spending rules like slush and soft money. [/b][/quote]
Your last paragraph provides another lesson:
Let the spender beware!
Money spend in aid of propagating ignorance is often a blessing. :)
vidcc
01-17-2004, 04:53 AM
note to self...i must point out to J2 that i read every word of his posting just in case he takes me for someone that might debate a point of his without first reading it.
sorry j2 i didn't realise that i have to admit to this.
edit...why on earth did this come out twice?
John91783
01-17-2004, 06:22 AM
GREAT POINT!!!! j2k4 I am a conservative and agreed with your article 100% :D good work
It's soooo important to spread this CRITICAL AWARENESS to the everyone!!
spreading knowledge +awareness help to fight for and protect our freedoms!
(one error though)..... in the begining of ur article u accused Libertarians as having interests against fredom of speech!!! this is so incorrect!
Libertarians are strict conservaties(the most conservative minded party ;) much more conservative than even the Republican Party. They fight for the freedoms established in the Constitution!
LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT LIBERALS......they are the farthest appart ideologically... :angel2: :devil:
Biggles
01-17-2004, 02:25 PM
J2
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that all who would seek to look to our "best interests" would do so as quickly and conveniently as possible. Consequently, broad debate and discussion never get a chance and "the law" or financial muscle are sought as first recourse in almost every case.
I think the comments made by Kilroy-Silk were at best unfortunate, but the knee jerk reaction and legal action action taken against him serves no one.
Likewise the knee jerk reaction in the US to a passing comment by one of the Dixie Chicks is likewise deplorable.
The good professor appears to have accidentally omitted the Committee for Un-American Activities in his brief history of the erosion of constitutional freedoms- shome mistake shurely :blink:
So, yes there are areas where we have tied ourselves in knots and whilst there have been major advances in many aspects of personal freedom (i.e. Oscar Wilde would not be sent to jail today but rather revered for his wit and genius) there are always those who would try to curtail what we say and do because they think they are right. The professor's own endorsement of an 18th century concept of "natural moral order" falls into the self same trap.
My own preference is for complete freedom of speech - even for those who disagree with my own own position and are therefore clearly misguided. :D
Biggles, old buddy-
Your post is an exemplar of rationality, as ever, but:
Might I request you seek out a book (if you can find it where you are) called "Treason" by Ann Coulter?
I'm very sure you will be appalled at her flaming rhetoric, but she has done an exhaustive job of recounting the true history of HUAC, Joe McCarthy, and that whole post-war period.
It deconstructs the entire mythology built up around McCarthy, and undoes much of the revisionism that has taken place in the intervening years.
I guarantee a nice ration of enlightenment.
John 91783-
Thank you, and good to have you aboard.
I think Libertarians and Conservatives have a few things in common, but while this may be the case, I find they have some strange ideas about free speech; in any case, they were not the thrust of my reason for posting that lengthy.....um.....post.
What I would really like is to have a Libertarian on board to provide the proper bona fides.
Do you know any?
I know one, but he is also, oddly enough, a bit of a Luddite-no computor. ;)
John91783
01-17-2004, 09:58 PM
j2k4 I am glad to hear that you are a conservative... thats great, but I suggest u learn the real facts about what the Libertarian party is all about! :book:
I am a Libertarian which means I am very conservative... :beerchug:
I oppose everything the liberals (left wingers) stand for.
:angel1: As for the Libertarian view on freedom of speech:
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and 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 host and publish information on the Internet; 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", file libraries, websites, 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.
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.
A Principled Stand Against Censorship :beerchug:
The Libertarian Party is the only political party in the United States with an explicit stand against censorship of computer communications in its platform. The Libertarian Party also opposes restrictions on the development and use of cryptography.
As a political party, the LP is the only anti-censorship organization that gives you a chance to vote for freedom of speech on Election Day -- by voting for Libertarian candidates for public office.
Thank you for that comprehensive and excellent post; I know more now, certainly, than before.
But, as to our differences, minor though they might be:
I see a need to (and here is my difficulty: defining exact parameters)
manage certain types of information; i.e. pornography-there must be some mechanism to keep it out of certain hands (1); and (2), while I agree that restrictions on who can broadcast what be de-regulated, I see a need to manage the orderly assignment of broadcast frequencies (to avoid overcrowding) and oversee licensing to insure overconsolidation of control and ownership is not allowed to occur.
The FCC could do with a good bath to aid in shrinkage; it is much too top-heavy.
I am, as you are, opposed to government subsidy of any broadcast group-let them raise funds privately and broadcast as best they can.
I believe us to be very close on the overall issue. ;)
You realize, of course, that your presence here will raise hackles? :D
vidcc
01-17-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by John91783@17 January 2004 - 21:58
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;
John.
even though i don't really want to see pornography (honest it's true) i don't like the idea of being told i can't look at it if i wish, being well over the age of majority.
A direct question.
you oppose all censorship...would you include censoship of child porongraphy or would you draw the line there? because any party or individual that condones that sort of thing deserves to die a slow and painful death
Biggles
01-18-2004, 12:48 AM
J2
I will take a peek in my small but excellent local library, they can usually procure most things for me.
I am aware of some of the background and, with the Rosenberg case and the backdrop of the Korean war not going particualrly well after the Chinese intervention, there was a natural sense of unease in the corridors of power that things were unravelling.
However, by the Professor's own yard stick much that occurred during the McCarthy period would/should? be considered a roll back of personal liberty and freedom. To be black-listed and prevented from working because of affiliations to a political point of view (which, like Fascism, was actually slightly trendy back in the 20s and 30s) is hardly an example of the model he is seeking to develop.
With regards Liberal vs Libertarian, I have never really understood the US intrepretation of Liberal. In Europe, Liberals tend to be the party of small businesses, Conservatives the party of big business and the Socialists the party of the worker. Perhaps one of the greatest Libertarians thinkers, J. S. Mill, was a Liberal.
I have no problem with John's definition above and I think perhaps the question regarding child pornography is ill thought out. By definition, the property (body) of another has been exploited without consent and therefore has broken the guiding principle of Libertarianism. As I understand it (from talking to a Libertarian back in my University days) where there is consent there is no crime. If a woman chooses to be a prostitute the contract between her and her client is of no concern to anyone else (well the Inland Revenue might have a call). If she is a prostitute through force then the crime is commited by the Pimp not the woman. I find this to be reasonably consistent thinking.
I tend to view Libertarianism much like Anarchy. I like it when I see it written down but in actual fact the logic of both would suggest that a poltical party to oversee implementation is in fact a redundant concept. I suspect they are ideals that will only be achieved through some kind of evolutionary development that transcends our current flesh. Although the idea of personal property is strong in Libertarian thinking and perhaps separates it at face value from the collective ownership advocated in Anarchy, I think the gulf between the two is narrower than first appears. Global multi-nationals are not the embodiment of Libertarian ideals and can in themselves deprive and crush the small owner of property. My view is that there may come a time when the two positions will merge and collective ownership and individual ownership will appear one and the same (a bit like those quarks that can occupy two places at the same time).
"You may say I am I dreamer but I am not the only one" - think I will go and light a joss stick now :D
John91783
01-18-2004, 12:53 AM
vidcc of course I + the views of the Libertarian party are strongly AGAINST any form of abuse against children, including child porn!! People who take advantage of kids in that terrible way are should die slow and painful deaths!
vidcc
01-18-2004, 03:18 AM
biggles
How could you say the question was ill thought out?. It doesn't matter if there was no consent in the act of making the vile film, the fact is that it is there and the question was would they censor it (which thankfully they would).
i doubt if there was consent in films where people have been killed, but we don't censor those instead we lable them as "news"
fortunatly the media on the whole knows where to draw the line, but what about the war footage released by the USA military forces. One could argue that they were rightious acts of war but what if the person crossing that bridge had been a civilian? could we have known for sure at the height of the plane? where was his consent to being filmed ?
Many times on the news i have seen the bodies of dead people, where was their consent to show such disrespect to the remains and what about the family of those victims?
how do you define what is actually a crime "against the body", it all depends on where you live. In the UK there are several men in prison for making an S&M video. They wern't arested because they made the video instead the video was used in evidence against them when the police charged them with assalt. The ruling was that the assalt took place even though all of the men involved gave express consent.
Porography in itself is not always consentual. There have been cases where girls have been bought into a country via illegal immigration and have been forced into prositution and pornography...how could you tell the difference?
without establishment control what is to stop someone broadcasting deep throat on unscrambled national TV at 3 in the afternoon? I think all but the sickest mind would not agree to something like that happening.
My question was rasied on the fact that they are against "all censorship" and he included pornogrphy in his example so i chose a particularly vile type of porn as a question and the point was "well it's out there, should it be censored when we disagree with censorship"
Biggles
01-18-2004, 04:12 AM
Vidcc
I simply thought the answer was self evident from his definition of what constituted Libertarian thinking. However, I have, as I said, spoken to Liberatarians before so perhaps I brought a priori knowledge into the discussion and what was apparent to me was not immediately discerable from the text above.
With regards what should and should not be shown on TV, or in the media, is an interesting question. Should Africans be shown starving to death. I recall back in the 60s people complained that it was distressing to see Biafrans starving, although the implication was that it didn't much matter if they starved they just simply didn't want to see. I personally don't want a sanitised TV experience, I would prefer to see the world, warts and all. Wars with no dead bodies makes war look fun and clean and easily repeatable. It patently is not.
The question regarding sex on TV leaves me non-plussed. I have no strong feelings on the subject but it has always struck me as odd that children are shielded from a natural function of being a mammal but are almost, it would seem, encouraged to watch violent programmes. I think if a channel did show oral sex at 3 o'clock in the afternoon my reaction would be 'there is an off button'. I do not watch programmes I don't want to see. No one forces us to read books, watch films or television or go to art galleries to see disturbing conceptual art. So in that respect I agree with John, censorship can over reach itself.
Are those gentlemen still in jail? I recall the case from some years ago. I cannot imagine why they are still hosted at (considerable) taxpayers expense for simply giving each other pleasure, no matter how bizarre we may find their particular bent. There are hardened criminals who have been in and out of jail in less time.
You would appear to be arguing for extremely tight controls on absolutely everything. In which case although I do not share your view I can respect your position.
However, I do accept that you may simply be posing a general question regarding where a line should be drawn over censorship. In which case I would reply we in the UK have a little way to go yet but things are certainly a lot better than they were say in the 60s/70s when the satirical magazine Oz was tried under the obscenities laws for work that had a clearly political edge.
vidcc
01-18-2004, 05:09 AM
biggles.
yes it is a general question about where the line should be drawn, and i believe even in the one party there will be conflicting views as to where that line should be.
I am not argueing for tight controls on everything at all...in my original post i stated that even though i don't particularly want to look at porn i don't want to be told i can't.
What worries me about the Liberatarians stance is that it may be too far to the right to be acceptable. You in the Uk ( i was born and raised there ) have a watershed on the tv. after 9 pm. more adult content is allowed because children should be in bed. I don't think that the content should be tamed down because certain households lack parental discipline. You did mention the off button, i have had that view for many years and i still do, if i don't want to watch something i just don't watch it. that said the media carries a great reponsibility to practice restriant appropriately. I totally agree that there is too much violence portrayed on TV and movies that children get exposed to, but again i too wouldn't like a sanitised only TV.
Here in the States there is a lot of talk about freedom, in many ways they are a lot less free than in the Uk, but in some ways they are free to do things that would be considered insane in the UK...firearms is an example.
Freedom of speech without interference from government or authority in leiu of is important in all democratic society, but the nature of man makes it a very dangerous thing as well.
Tight control....NO WAY....reasonable control....well what is reasonable anyway? but i would rather live in a society where i don't have to sit with my kids every time they do watch TV just in case there is something bad on.
As for the convicted S&M men....i have no idea if they are out on parole/released or if they begged to be locked up with the mad anal rapist for a bit longer...it was just a point as to what is considered a crime against the body is different in all cultures.....here it could be different depending on which state you live in.
John91783
01-18-2004, 07:41 AM
Biggles
I find it upsetting and unfortunate for you to compare the views of Libertarians with any form of anarchy! Libertarians promote freedom to the greatest extent possible!
Here is a Statement of true Libertarian 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; (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 (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.
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.
Biggles
01-18-2004, 12:38 PM
Vidcc
Yous last makes your position much clearer, and a reasonable and balanced position it is too. You are right there will always be conflicts, even within oneself, regarding what is and is not allowable. I believe in free speech but there have always been a couple of politicians that have me reaching for the off button after only a couple of words. :D
John
Anarchy tends to be associated with fringe lunatics with a penchant to blow things up. However, the intellectual body of work, notably Gramsci, but others too, also spoke at length about the oppression of the state and freedom of the individual. Your first two points would be music to their ears. Libertarians only really part company with Anarchists at point 3 of your piece. Anarchists also believe that property ultimately enslaves people and should be shared collectively (not owned by the State, as was the case in the Soviet Union). The logic being that if we all collectively own the wealth then we are all rich.
The difficulty of course is that although as a theoretical concept it looks good, practice is a tad tricky - in much the same that Libertarians find Governments determinedly reluctant to relinquish power.
Although the current Bush administration has perhaps lessened some of the general tax burden, measures taken by Ashcroft et al could hardly be described as loosening the grip of the authority of the State. In fairness to them they would probably not describe themselves as Libertarians. So in that respect and with a casual nod towards the thread topic, it is not just liberals who erode freedoms. I suspect the good Professor with his "natural moral order" would seek to control people just as much - only in a different way (or as he would see it, the right way :rolleyes: )
vidcc
01-18-2004, 08:08 PM
john.
i am following your views with great interest. On the face of it the policy does seem attractive and admirable and yes they do stop short of total anarchy ( i will have to look for a copy of all the party policies ).
I am not in any way as far right as you, nor am i a far left socialist (a socialist is someone that has nothing and wants to share it with you) i tend to take a middle ground. The first reading had me thinking of the lord of the flies.
The idea of a free market is something that holds very strong here in the states and would it would be as hard to change that view as it would be to convince the pope that there is no God. That said i feel that sometimes certain things in national hands are more benificial. In the Uk the main utilities used to be in the hands of the Government i shall use water for this example.
Mrs. Thatcher decided in her wisdom that instead of using taxpayers money to pay for needed modernisation she would privatise the utility so that private money would pay for it. The share price was set at a bargain and many people bought shares to make a fast "buck"...they sold them at twice the purchase price, now the companies are in the hands of corporations. the money for the modernisation didn't come from the companies, it came from increased water bills, therefore maximising profit and minimising investment (the whole idea of business).
The point is that the consumer can in certain areas ultimately pay a heavy price for the free market. In the case of water they have no other choice but to buy from the company.
Just look at the cost of healthcare in our country.
I am all for the free market but it can run hand in hand with with the general social good. If there was a sudden lack of water in the country and one person has a well then i feel that the well should be used to keep others alive.
I believe though that the meaning behind the policy is that you shouldn't have to go to war to secure oil supplies for a few corporations profit margins which i fully agree with.
Should a Libertarian party come to power i would hope that they look after the interests of all as well as the individual. Would you have a consumers rights policy? and if so how would you administer it without interference of the free market ethics? how would you decide who would run it and just how much power it would have?
Government has its place and it has areas where it doesn't belong and i do believe you are genuinely on track in many things on this particular post (free speech) and are trying to seperate governing from interference.
There are winners and losers in any system, i just feel that the system you promote might make more indiviual losers that winners. That said i haven't read a complete copy so i have no idea what your social safety net would be.
One thing i have always found amusing is that the USA is very vocal in promoting its way of life as being better than everyone elses (this is a generalisation) yet we insist on the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from our democratically elected government :lol:
John91783
01-18-2004, 08:22 PM
Biggles
Anarchists also believe that property ultimately enslaves people and should be shared collectively (not owned by the State, as was the case in the Soviet Union). The logic being that if we all collectively own the wealth then we are all rich.
Libertarians DO NOT believe that property enslaves people!!!!!!! :ermm:
Or that it should be shared collectively like communists!!!! :angry: THE SUGGESTION OF THAT MAKES ME FEEL SICK. :fear: :x
Libertarians strongly support the rights of owners of private property to the greatest extent... WE CONDEMN EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN INDIVIDUALS PRIVATE PROPERTY... (SUCH AS TAXATION)
The Right to Property (libertarian outlook) :beerchug:
There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.
All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.
We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.
We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location.
Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
John91783
01-18-2004, 08:23 PM
I LOVE DEBATING THIS WITH YOU GUYS AND I CAN SEE WE DIFFER ON SOME ISSUES BUT AGREE WITH MANY OTHERS :D
vidcc
01-18-2004, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by John91783@18 January 2004 - 20:22
Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
Native Americans will be very happy to hear that, as will native Hawaaians :D
Biggles
01-19-2004, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by John91783@18 January 2004 - 20:22
Biggles
Anarchists also believe that property ultimately enslaves people and should be shared collectively (not owned by the State, as was the case in the Soviet Union). The logic being that if we all collectively own the wealth then we are all rich.
Libertarians DO NOT believe that property enslaves people!!!!!!! :ermm:
Or that it should be shared collectively like communists!!!! :angry: THE SUGGESTION OF THAT MAKES ME FEEL SICK. :fear: :x
Libertarians strongly support the rights of owners of private property to the greatest extent... WE CONDEMN EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN INDIVIDUALS PRIVATE PROPERTY... (SUCH AS TAXATION)
:D
I did say that is where you part company with the Anarchists (although a bit more dramatically than I envisaged)
As Country Joe and the Fish once said, "everyone's got their limits"
I enjoy the debates too.
:01:
John91783
01-19-2004, 03:40 AM
Biggles
<span style='color:red'>Libertarians Do Not have the same goals or share similar beliefs with anarchists (even in the most general way)!!! You have gone too far in attempting such a poor comparison....</span>
Libertarians stand for individual rights.... that is a HUGE difference from anarchists by itself, aside from our numerous other principles.
ANARCHY IS DEFINED AS an absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion, and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government).
vidcc
01-19-2004, 05:57 PM
yes John you are right libertarians are not anarchists. But Biggles does have the right to make a comparison be he right or wrong. He could even hire a hall and preach his views, or print flyers and hand them out in the streets or even broadcast on his own radio and TV station to put his case.
You pointed out that you enjoy the debate, well you will find that debate in here can turn into less of a debate and more a name calling match, which i find very sad as there are quite a few people putting valid points.
i tend to just turn off and discontinue debate once someone comes up with..."your views are wrong" but they can't justify why they oppose them. There is a blinkered view that has infected many people. I try to play devil advocate sometimes just to keep the debate sharp but getting some people to look at both sides of a debate even if they still keep their opinions is like trying to convince the pope there is no God.
Reading Biggles post he isn't really trying to suggest that libertarians are anarchist, but that's probably just how i read it being used to trying to get what people actually are saying.
It's hard sometimes reading instead of actually hearing the person talk and often it's easy to think that one is being criticised when one actually isn't, especially if the person is trying to be clever. :frusty: (not suggesting that Biggles is trying to be clever)
B.Helto
01-19-2004, 06:03 PM
I can't wait 'til election time, so we can kick those damn liberals out of the white house.
vidcc
01-19-2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by B.Helto@19 January 2004 - 18:03
I can't wait 'til election time, so we can kick those damn liberals out of the white house.
a very well presented case <_<
Originally posted by B.Helto@19 January 2004 - 14:03
I can't wait 'til election time, so we can kick those damn liberals out of the white house.
:lol: Just so- :lol:
:lol: :lol: :D :P
But to replace them? :huh:
clocker
01-19-2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@19 January 2004 - 10:37
But to replace them? :huh:
Let's see now...who is right of Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft?
Hmmm.....
Gee, too bad Attila the Hun is otherwise occupied, huh?
vidcc
01-19-2004, 09:53 PM
Personally, and this has nothing to do with being left or right wing, i think G.W. has been the worst president for the good of the USA in history.
He has turned a strong economy into a shambles when he inherited more than any other president before him.
He has lost the USA a lot of goodwill and respect around the world.
he has turned a generally open friendly country into a hotbed of paranoyer ( i believe to sway attention from the mess he has created with the home economics )
How many millions have lost their employment ?
it doesn't matter what the political area you stand in, the job is to build a strong, healthy and viable country for all citizens and alas the present government has failed.
Biggles
01-19-2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by John91783@19 January 2004 - 03:40
Biggles
<span style='color:red'>Libertarians Do Not have the same goals or share similar beliefs with anarchists (even in the most general way)!!! You have gone too far in attempting such a poor comparison....</span>
Libertarians stand for individual rights.... that is a HUGE difference from anarchists by itself, aside from our numerous other principles.
ANARCHY IS DEFINED AS an absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion, and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government).
John
Vidcc is right, I did not say Libertarians are the same as Anarchists - although I was rather taken with your red writing above. :rolleyes:
If you go back to my original posting you will see the comparison I was making was regards to Utopian political ideals. I call them Utopian because I can't see either viewpoint gaining much ground in the corridors of power. The current US administration is busily rolling back freedom of information and the right to privacy which I would guess you consider anti-libertarian.
The dictionary definition of Anarchy has come to mean chaos but Gramsci et al were not writing about chaos. They were writing about freedom from government. I have quoted this before, and I apologise for repetition, Gramsci said "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in". The point I was trying to make was that from both the left and the right there is a history and culture of wanting freedom from excessive government. The need to control property appears very central to your definition of Libertarianism, but I have read European libertarian pieces where such issues come secondary to personal freedom. That is not to say it is not there, it is just not as big an issue.
I apologise if it appeared as if I was trying to somehow criticise Libertarianism by saying it was the same as Anarchy (or vice versa for that matter). I was more trying to draw a parallel between two diverse and seemingly opposed political trains of thought with regards their disdain for governmental control over individuals' lives. Whereas mainstream Conservatism and Socialism cannot (despite rhetoric to the contrary on both sides) resist to the temptation to tinker with what we can and cannot do.
I may be wrong in this comparison and it may be a rather dry academic exercise for this board, but I would be interested in where you think the early Anarchist writers erred in their rejection of governmental control and governmental structures. I take it as read that your favoured party rejects them better, but a comparison would be interesting nonetheless.
Alex H
01-20-2004, 07:13 AM
I read the speech (really j2k4 :) and I did find a few important things missing.
These laws do contain a notable exception. Newspaper owners may spend as much money as they wish publishing arguments in support of candidates with whom they “coordinate.” This solitary exemption from restrictions on free speech is, of course, no mistake: The dominant newspapers in America are liberal, and the 1974 law was passed by a Democratic Congress on the day before Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace from the presidency.
The obvious solution is get some more right-wing news papers.
I have to say (sorry, reitterate the point made earlier) that when the founding fathers created your constitution the local (American) and world situation was significantly different to today. I suppose this is why there are Ammedments i.e. "Whoops, that was kinda important and we forgot to put it in."
Free speech IS a good one but once established it becomes apparent that (like the constitution) there were important parts left out, like libel and defamation. I agree that it is important to be able to say what you like, but if I felt like printing leaflets and posters saying "J2K4 F***S 10 YEAR OLD BOYS UP THE ARSE" and distributing them around his house, work, local shopping centre, etc. his only recourse would be to print his own leaflets and posters saying "I DO NOT F*** 10 YEAR OLD BOYS UP THE ARSE - SIGNED J2K4" And I know the conservatives here always like proof and sources for everything because they are (rightly) afraid of baseless accusations being multiplied.
I'm prepared (as is the majority of people) to give up that small freedom in exchange for the protection to my reputation.
The right to bear arms is another point in case. While 200 years ago it was important to have firearms for protection in remote locations and hunting, no-one has been able to convince me that a 9mm Beretta 92 has a purpose other than for killing other human beings. It is your right to have one, but why would you want it? Are you prepared to give up that small freedom in exchange for the protection of your person?
I find it interesting that conservatives (in general) see the high value of intellectual freedoms and the need to sacrifice small parts in exchange for protections, because they realise the huge negative impact it will have on the course of their lives if everybody is allowed to say anything. I think everybody here agrees in a fundamental base of law and justice. Yet at the same time those people would demand the right to carry guns when it is perfectly clear that by giving up that right, you are given the freedom to live your lives without the fear of being shot.
Oh, interesting note about property. Real estate does not mean "real and tangible". It comes from Spannish and means "royal estate", meaning the monarch or governmant owns it, and you're allowed to control it. If you think you own your property, don't pay tax on it. You'll soon see who really owns the land.
John91783
01-20-2004, 08:58 AM
Biggles my friend I would be glad to explain the differentiating views between governmental structures of LIBERTARIANS compared to ANARCHISTS. :)
THE LIBERTARIAN STAND :angel1:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
(NOT A WORLD WITHOUT GOVERNMENTS ALL TOGETHER WHICH WOULD BRING TOTAL ANARCHY!!).
[SIZE=14]THAT NOW STATED LET ME TAKE YOU DEEPER INTO THE RABBIT HOLE (LIBERTARIAN STYLE)! :D :beerchug:
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.
Freedom and Responsibility
We believe that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions. Personal responsibility is discouraged by government denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility.
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. We call for an end to "hate crime" laws that punish people for their thoughts and speech, distract us from real crimes, and foster resentment by giving some individuals special status under the law. Laws pertaining to "victimless crimes" should be repealed since such laws themselves violate individual rights and also breed genuine 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.
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;
The repeal of all laws restricting or prohibiting the use or sale of alcohol, requiring health warning labels and signs, making bartenders or hosts responsible for the behavior of customers and guests, making liquor companies liable for birth defects, and making gambling houses liable for the losses of intoxicated gamblers;
The repeal of all laws or policies authorizing stopping drivers without probable cause to test for alcohol or drug use;
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;
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";
B) The repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling;
C) 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 and/or seizing assets of the accused or convicted; and
D) 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.
The War on Drugs
The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war on the American people, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We deplore the suffering that drug misuse has brought about; however, drug prohibition is more dangerous than drugs themselves. The War on Drugs is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world; furthermore, it has provided a rationale by which the power of the state has been expanded to restrict greatly our right to privacy and to be secure in our homes.
We specifically condemn the use of "profiles" as sufficient to satisfy the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment, the use of "civil asset forfeiture" to reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions, and the use of military forces for civilian law enforcement as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids this practice.
We call for the repeal of all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs and of "anti-crime" measures restricting individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property; limiting our rights to keep and bear arms; or vote.
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. When they are responsible, government police employees or agents should be liable for this restitution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Government and Mental Health
We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution.
We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.
We oppose government pressure requiring parents to obtain counseling or psychiatric drugs for their children. We also oppose forced treatment for the elderly, the head-injured, or those with diminished capacity.
Medication must be voluntary. We are against the invasion of people's homes and privacy by health officials or law enforcement to either require or deny drug taking.
We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.
We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.
Freedom of Communication
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and 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 host and publish information on the Internet; 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", file libraries, websites, 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.
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.
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 oppose the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.
We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.
The Right to Property
There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.
All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.
We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.
We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location.
Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
Protection of Privacy
The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties. We also oppose police roadblocks aimed at randomly, and without probable cause, testing drivers for intoxication and police practices to stop mass transit vehicles and search passengers without probable cause.
So long as the National Census and all federal, state, and other government agencies' compilations of data on an individual continue to exist, they should be conducted only with the consent of the persons from whom the data is sought.
We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods.
If a private employer screens prospective or current employees via questionnaires, polygraph tests, urine tests for drugs, blood tests for AIDS, or other means, this is a condition of that employer's labor contracts. Such screening does not violate the rights of employees, who have the right to boycott such employers if they choose. Private contractual arrangements, including labor contracts, must be founded on mutual consent and agreement in a society that upholds freedom of association. On the other hand, we oppose any use of such screening by government or regulations requiring government contractors to impose any such screening.
We oppose government regulations that require employers to provide health insurance coverage for employees, which often encourage unnecessary intrusions by employers into the privacy of their employees.
We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.
We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments.
Government Secrecy
We condemn the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have. We favor substituting a system in which no individual may be convicted for violating government secrecy classifications unless the government discharges its burden of proving that the publication:
violated the right of privacy of those who have been coerced into revealing confidential or proprietary information to government agents, or
disclosed defensive military plans so as to materially impair the capabilities to respond to attack.
It should always be a defense to such prosecution that information divulged shows that the government has violated the law.
Internal Security and Civil Liberties
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. Because oversight becomes more difficult with the proliferation and growth of bureaucracies, we oppose the establishment of a new cabinet level Department of Homeland Security.
We call for the repeal of the Patriot Act of 2001, the Counter-terrorism Act of 1996, and all other legislation that authorizes secret evidence, holding people without charge, treating material witnesses like convicted criminals, engaging in search and seizure without Constitutionally issued and executed warrants, and other violations of individual rights under the color of national security.
We support the abolition of the subpoena power as used by Congressional committees against individuals or firms. We oppose any efforts to revive the House Internal Security Committee or its predecessor the House Un-American Activities Committee, and call for the destruction of its files on private individuals and groups. We also call for the abolition of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms and oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating, or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We also oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace," or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.
We support repeal of all gun control laws and we demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials"), and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.
Conscription and the Military
Recognizing that registration is the first step toward full conscription, we oppose all attempts at compulsory registration of any person and all schemes for automatic registration through government invasions of the privacy of school, motor vehicle, or other records. We call for the abolition of the still-functioning elements of the Selective Service System, believing that impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. We call for the destruction of all files in computer-readable or hard-copy form compiled by the Selective Service System. We also oppose any form of national service, such as a compulsory youth labor program.
We oppose adding women to the pool of those eligible for and subject to the draft, not because we think that as a rule women are unfit for combat, but because we believe that this step enlarges the number of people subjected to government tyranny.
We support the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military. Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons.
We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files.
We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.
Immigration
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Freedom of Association and Government Discrimination
Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.
We support repealing any such laws rather than extending them to all individuals.
Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. Anti-discrimination laws create the same problems. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.
The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent.
Women's Rights and Abortion
We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. (PERSONALLY I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR STAND....BECAUSE I AM PRO LIFE.... :ermm:
We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.
Families and Children
We believe that families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. We believe that government involvement in traditional parenting responsibilities has weakened families and replaced family-taught morals with government-taught morals.
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government, unless they are abusing the children. We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.
Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood.
Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship. Accordingly, we oppose all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services. In particular, we call for the repeal of all laws restricting transracial adoption.
A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age.
We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.
Sexual Rights
We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.
We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.
We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
I still have to post the remaining part later (It is about half typed + posted). I hope everyone reads it and asks me any questions they may have. :D
ANARCHY IS IS DEFINED AS an absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion, and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government).
As u may well see, Libertarians do not promote any lawlessnes or disorder that anarchy is all about... B)
vidcc
01-20-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by John91783@20 January 2004 - 08:58
We oppose government regulations that require employers to provide health insurance coverage for employees, which often encourage unnecessary intrusions by employers into the privacy of their employees.
John
i haven't had time to read through all that so i just glanced over it, but rest assured i will read it in full when i get time.
One thing that did stand out was the quote above.
How would the libertarian party manage the healthcare of the millions of people that would suddenly find themselves in the VERY expensive position of funding the full costs of their health coverage? We already have a huge problem where insurance is pricing itself out of the reach of many hard working Americans.
In many parts of the world this is done through a social system of taxation but i think i might be right in suggesting that you would oppose that.
Biggles
01-20-2004, 07:26 PM
:D
John
Thank you for that. Although I see you have stuck with the modern usage of the term anarchy and kept comparisons between the two a little on the skimpy side. Nevertheless and interesting and enjoyable read.
By and large your piece is broadly similar to what I have seen before but perhaps more US based. Libertarians in Europe have little interest in guns for example. However, that is purely a cultural difference. The piece on drugs on the other hand is all but identical to the European position as are many of the other areas you cover.
Anarchy is not actually about disorder per se. The absence of government and governmental control may lead to disorder but that is not the goal. There is little chance of any form of coherent human civilsation lasting a single generation if there is perpetual disorder The aim, as I understand it, is to move beyond disorder and onto a state of peaceful co-existence based on the fundamental needs of each individual without State interference. Multi-national corporations for the anarchist also fall into this category as they subvert basic freedoms.
I still see both positions as idealistic (although there is nothing wrong at all in being idealistic). I also believe that States and State bueaucracies are far too entrenched to even consider for a moment loosening their grip or paying much more than lip service to the aspirations of either movement. That doesn't mean I am anti either view. I actually like the thinking behind the ideals of both Groups ( :D yes John I know the Anarchists are a bit collective orientated which gives you serious indigestion).
It goes without saying that I think those who mixed Trotskist revolutionary politics with Anarchism or Racist/Fascists who like to call themselves Libertarians are lunatics who have disappeared up their own logic fundament. It was heartening that your piece showed the true extent of the broad church of Libertarianism.
So I suppose, returning to the original topic, is the good professor right to focus solely on the left for erosion of personal freedoms or have Conservative forces been guilty of this too?
vidcc
01-20-2004, 08:21 PM
Ok john had a little time to read.
you oppose welfare payments therefore suggesting that if someone has no money for one reason or another then they will be left on their own to either beg or even comit crimes to survive (it's not always possible to "get a job" and i already see people at the roadside with cardboard signs stating "will work for food") i realise that as you stated you oppose infringments upon peoples rights and i assume being held up at gunpoint ( a cheap saturday night special gun) by a desperate father trying to feed his children would be an infringement of that right...is it wrong for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family?
Exactly what do you want a government for ? reading the manifesto so far it seems that all the government would be able to do is sit around playing cards and talk about the old days.
I agree with the ability to define your own ultimate destiny and i do fully acceprt that you are in no way an anarchist, however looking at the manifesto i have to say i fear that a state of anarchy or as close to could be the result.
The druglords would be the ultimate power and we would have a society living in fear. Gun ownership for "self defence" would become essential rather than a right so i can see why you wouldn't want to restrict the sale of said items.
Do you oppose compulsory education? (please clarify)
i could go on and on but i won't.
i respect the underlying reasons for the manifesto and i also respect the actual intentions even if i believe the intentions will lead to misintentions happening.
the laws of physics state that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i fear that some of the doctrines in your manifesto may cause a reaction far greater and will turn the USA into a third would country (bits already are) where the only laws that prevail are the laws of nature (only the strong survive)
John91783
01-21-2004, 02:25 AM
The following are the remaining goals for government that the Libertarian party stands for and promotes.... I hope this will further show you the difference between anarchism. :D After I finish this post I will then take the time to answer your questions and comments (vidcc + Biggles and who ever else ;) ) with my full attention and respect...thank you for having interest and taking the time....
II. Trade and the Economy
We believe that each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. Therefore we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics. The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
Efforts to forcibly redistribute wealth or forcibly manage trade are intolerable. Government manipulation of the economy creates an entrenched privileged class -- those with access to tax money -- and an exploited class -- those who are net taxpayers.
We believe that all individuals have the right to dispose of the fruits of their labor as they see fit and that government has no right to take such wealth. We oppose government-enforced charity such as welfare programs and subsidies, but we heartily applaud those individuals and private charitable organizations that help the needy and contribute to a wide array of worthwhile causes through voluntary activities.
1) The Economy
Government intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American. To ensure the economic freedom and enhance the economic well-being of Americans, we would implement the following policies:
A) Dramatic reductions in both taxes and government spending;
B) An end to deficit budgets;
C) A halt to inflationary monetary policies;
D) The elimination of all government impediments to free trade; and
The repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.
2) Taxation
Since we believe that all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, we oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights. Specifically, we:
A) Recognize the right of any individual to challenge the payment of taxes on moral, religious, legal, or constitutional grounds;
B) Oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes;
C) Support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes;
D) Support the eventual repeal of all taxation; and
E) Support a declaration of unconditional amnesty for all those individuals who have been convicted of, or who now stand accused of, tax resistance.
As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.
We oppose as involuntary servitude any legal requirements forcing employers or business owners to serve as tax collectors for federal, state, or local tax agencies.
We oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions, or credits in the spurious name of "fairness," "simplicity," or alleged "neutrality to the free market." No tax can ever be fair, simple, or neutral to the free market.
In the current fiscal crisis of states and municipalities, default is preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public debt.
3) Inflation and Depression
We recognize that government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item, such as gold coins denominated by units of weight. We therefore call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account. We support the right to private ownership of and contracts for gold. We favor the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins should be abolished so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.
We favor free-market banking. We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit. Our opposition encompasses all controls on the rate of interest. We also call for the abolition of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility, and all similar national and state interventions affecting savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other depository institutions. There should be unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types.
To complete the separation of bank and State, we favor the Jacksonian independent treasury system, in which all government funds are held by the government itself and not deposited in any private banks. The only further necessary check upon monetary inflation is the consistent application of the general protection against fraud to the minting and banking industries.
Pending its abolition, the Federal Reserve System, in order to halt inflation, must immediately cease its expansion of the quantity of money. As interim measures, we further support:
A) The lifting of all restrictions on branch banking;
B) The repeal of all state usury laws;
C) The removal of all remaining restrictions on the interest paid for deposits;
D) The elimination of laws setting margin requirements on purchases and sales of securities;
E) The revocation of all other selective credit controls;
F) The abolition of Federal Reserve control over the reserves of non-member banks and other depository institutions; and
G) The lifting of the prohibition of domestic deposits denominated in foreign currencies.
4) Finance and Capital Investment
We call for the abolition of all regulation of financial and capital markets -- specifically, the abolition of the Securities and Exchange Commission, of state "Blue Sky" laws which repress small and risky capital ventures, and of all federal regulation of commodity markets. We oppose any attempts to ban or regulate investing in stock-market index futures or new financial instruments which may emerge in the future.
We call for repeal of all laws based on the muddled concept of insider trading. What should be punished is the theft of information or breach of contract to hold information in confidence, not trading on the basis of valuable knowledge. We support the right of third parties to make stock purchase tender offers to stockholders over the opposition of entrenched management, and oppose all laws restricting such offers.
5) Government Debt
We support the drive for a constitutional amendment requiring the national government to balance its budget, and also support similar amendments to require balanced state budgets. To be effective, a balanced budget amendment should provide:
A) That neither Congress nor the President be permitted to override this requirement;
B) That all off-budget items are included in the budget;
C) That the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes; and
D) That no exception be made for periods of national emergency.
The Federal Reserve should be forbidden to acquire any additional government securities, thereby helping to eliminate the inflationary aspect of the deficit. Governments facing fiscal crises should always default in preference to raising taxes. At a minimum, the level of government should be frozen.
6) Monopolies
We condemn all coercive monopolies. We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. In order to abolish monopolies, we advocate a strict separation of business and State.
"Anti-trust" laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We therefore call for the repeal of all "anti-trust" laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act which restricts price discounts, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. We further call for the abolition of the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives, and other types of companies based on voluntary association. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we oppose special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in noncontractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility, or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.
7) Subsidies
In order to achieve a free economy in which government victimizes no one for the benefit of any other, we oppose all government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, broadcasting, the arts, sports, or any other special interest. In particular, we condemn any effort to forge an alliance between government and business under the guise of "reindustrialization" or "industrial policy." The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity. We therefore oppose any resumption of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, or any similar plan that would force the taxpayer to subsidize or sustain any enterprise.
We call for the abolition of the Federal Financing Bank, the most important national agency subsidizing special interests with government loans. We also oppose all government guarantees of so-called private loans. Such guarantees transfer resources to special interests as effectively as actual government expenditures and, at the national level, exceed direct government loans in total amount. Taxpayers must never bear the cost of default upon government-guaranteed loans. All national, state, and local government agencies whose primary function is to guarantee loans, including the Federal Housing Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Small Business Administration, should be abolished or privatized.
The loans of government-sponsored enterprises, even when not guaranteed by the government, constitute another form of subsidy. All such enterprises -- the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Student Loan Marketing Association -- must either be abolished or completely privatized.
Relief or exemption from taxation or from any other involuntary government intervention, however, should not be considered a subsidy.
8) Trade Barriers
Like subsidies, tariffs and quotas serve only to give special treatment to favored special interests and to diminish the welfare of consumers and other individuals, as do point-of-origin or content regulation. These measures also reduce the scope of contracts and understanding among different peoples. We therefore support abolition of all trade barriers and all government-sponsored export-promotion programs, as well as the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Court of International Trade. We affirm this as a unilateral policy, independent of the trade policies of other nations. Concurrent with the adoption of this policy shall be the complete and unilateral withdrawal from all international trade agreements including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
9) Public Utilities
We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges and governmental monopolies for such services as garbage collection, fire protection, electricity, natural gas, cable television, telephone, or water supplies. Furthermore, all rate regulation in these industries should be abolished. The right to offer such services on the market should not be curtailed by law.
10) Unions and Collective Bargaining
We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.
We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state Right-to-Work Laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor.
Government-mandated waiting periods for closure of factories or businesses hurt, rather than help, the wage-earner. We support all efforts to benefit workers, owners, and management by keeping government out of this area.
Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers, and innocent bystanders.
III. Domestic Ills
Current problems in such areas as energy, pollution, health care delivery, decaying cities, and poverty are not solved, but are primarily caused, by government. The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is in reality a growing and parasitic burden on all productive people, and injures, rather than benefits, the poor themselves.
1) Energy
We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production, such as that imposed by the Department of Energy, state public utility commissions, and state pro-rationing agencies. We oppose all government subsidies for energy research, development, and operation.
We oppose all direct and indirect government participation in the nuclear energy industry, including subsidies, research and development funds, guaranteed loans, waste disposal subsidies, and federal uranium enrichment facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be abolished; full liability -- not government agencies -- should regulate nuclear power. The Price-Anderson Act, through which the government limits liability for nuclear accidents and furnishes partial payment at taxpayer expense, should be repealed. Nuclear energy should be denationalized and the industry's assets transferred to the private sector. Any nuclear power industry must meet the test of a free market.
We support abolition of the Department of Energy and the abolition of its component agencies, without their transfer elsewhere in the government. We oppose the creation of any emergency mobilization agency in the energy field, which would wield dictatorial powers in order to override normal legal processes. We oppose all government conservation schemes through the use of taxes, subsidies, and regulation. We oppose the "strategic storage" program, any attempt to compel national self-sufficiency in oil, any extension of cargo preference law to imports, and any attempt to raise oil tariffs or impose oil import quotas.
We favor the creation of a free market in oil by instituting full property rights in underground oil and by the repeal of all government controls over output in the petroleum industry. All government-owned energy resources should be turned over to private ownership.
2) Pollution
Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false concept of "public property," block privatisation of the use of the environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource use. We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We therefore demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.
Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies that separate liability from property. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees, should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion. We condemn the EPA's Superfund whose taxing powers are used to penalize all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct. Such clean-ups are a subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.
3) Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. However, we oppose paternalistic regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict risk-taking and free choice. We oppose governmental promotion or imposition of the metric system.
We oppose all so-called "consumer protection" legislation which infringes upon voluntary trade, and call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.
We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has jeopardized safety by arrogating to itself a monopoly of safety regulation and enforcement. We call for privatizing the air traffic control system and transferring the FAA's other functions to private agencies.
We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and particularly its policies of mandating specific nutritional requirements and denying the right of manufacturers to make non-fraudulent claims concerning their products. We advocate an end to compulsory fluoridation of water supplies. We specifically oppose government regulation of the price, potency, or quantity able to be produced or purchased of drugs or other consumer goods. There should be no laws regarding what substances (nicotine, alcohol, hallucinogens, narcotics, Laetrile, artificial sweeteners, vitamin supplements, or other "drugs") a person may ingest or otherwise use.
4) Education
We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions.
As an interim measure to encourage the growth of private schools and variety in education, including home schooling, we support tax credits for tuition and other expenditures related to an individual's education. We likewise favor tax credits for child care and oppose nationalization of the child-care industry. We oppose denial of tax-exempt status to schools because of those schools' private policies on hiring, admissions, and student deportment. We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether for profit or non-profit.
We condemn compulsory education laws, which spawn prison-like schools with many of the problems associated with prisons, and we call for an immediate repeal of such laws.
Until government involvement in education is ended, we support elimination, within the governmental school system, of forced busing and corporal punishment. We further support immediate reduction of tax support for schools, and removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children.
5) Education
We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions.
As an interim measure to encourage the growth of private schools and variety in education, including home schooling, we support tax credits for tuition and other expenditures related to an individual's education. We likewise favor tax credits for child care and oppose nationalization of the child-care industry. We oppose denial of tax-exempt status to schools because of those schools' private policies on hiring, admissions, and student deportment. We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether for profit or non-profit.
We condemn compulsory education laws, which spawn prison-like schools with many of the problems associated with prisons, and we call for an immediate repeal of such laws.
Until government involvement in education is ended, we support elimination, within the governmental school system, of forced busing and corporal punishment. We further support immediate reduction of tax support for schools, and removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children.
6) Transportation
Government interference in transportation is characterized by monopolistic restriction, corruption and gross inefficiency. We therefore call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission, and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms. We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads, and the national highway system. We condemn the re-cartelization of commercial aviation by the Federal Aviation Administration via rationing of take-off and landing rights and controlling scheduling in the name of "safety."
As interim measures, we advocate an immediate end to government regulation of private transit organizations and to governmental favors to the transportation industry. In particular, we support the immediate repeal of all laws restricting transit competition such as the granting of taxicab and bus monopolies and the prohibition of private jitney services. We urge immediate deregulation of the trucking industry.
7) Poverty and Unemployment
Government fiscal and monetary measures that artificially foster business expansion guarantee an eventual increase in unemployment rather than curtailing it. We call for the immediate cessation of such policies as well as any governmental attempts to affect employment levels.
We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labor legislation for women and children, governmental restrictions on the establishment of private day-care centers, and the National Labor Relations Act. We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work.
We seek the elimination of occupational licensure, which prevents human beings from working in whatever trade they wish. We call for the abolition of all federal, state, and local government agencies that restrict entry into any profession, such as education and law, or regulate its practice. No worker should be legally penalized for lack of certification, and no consumer should be legally restrained from hiring unlicensed individuals.
We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and "aid to the poor" programs. All these government programs are invasive of privacy, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
To speed the time when governmental programs are replaced by effective private institutions we advocate dollar-for-dollar tax credits for all charitable contributions.
8) Health Care
Recent decades have witnessed growing government involvement in the health care system. That involvement has led to bureaucratic top-down management, rapidly escalating prices, costly regulations, the criminalization of the practice of medicine, and a host of other problems. None of these problems was prevalent prior to the time when government began to increase its involvement. We believe that government involvement is the principal cause of many of the problems we face in the health care system today. Therefore we favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system.
We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the state. We recognize the right of individuals to determine free from government interference and its harmful side effects the level of insurance they want, the level of care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use, and all other aspects of their medical care. We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research, including cloning.
We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care. Both of these functions can be more effectively provided in the private sector. The high cost of health insurance is largely due to government's excessive regulation of the industry. Government's role in any kind of insurance should only be to enforce contracts when necessary, not to dictate to insurance companies and consumers which kinds of insurance contracts they may voluntarily agree upon.
9) Resource Use
Resource management is properly the responsibility and right of the legitimate owners of land, water, and other natural resources. We oppose government control of resource use through eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, urban renewal, or purchase of development rights with tax money. Such regulations and programs violate property rights, discriminate against minorities, create housing shortages, and tend to cause higher rents.
We advocate the establishment of an efficient and just system of private water rights, applied to all bodies of water, surface and underground. Such a system should be built upon a doctrine of first claim and use. The allocation of water should be governed by unrestricted competition and unregulated prices. All government restrictions upon private use or voluntary transfer of water rights or similar despotic controls can only aggravate the misallocation of water.
We also advocate the privatization of government and quasi-government water supply systems. The construction of government dams and other water projects should cease, and existing government water projects should be transferred to private ownership. We favor the abolition of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers' civilian functions. We also favor the abolition of all local water districts and their power to tax. Only the complete separation of water and the State will prevent future water crises.
We call for the homesteading or other just transfer to private ownership of federally held lands. We oppose any use of executive orders invoking the Antiquities Act to set aside public lands. We call for the abolition of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Forced surface-mining of privately homesteaded lands in which the government has reserved surface mining rights to itself is a violation of the rights of the present landholders. We recognize the legitimacy of resource planning by means of private, voluntary covenants. We oppose creation of new government parks or wilderness and recreation areas. Such parks and areas that already exist should be transferred to non-government ownership. Pending such just transfer, their operating costs should be borne by their users rather than by taxpayers.
10) Agriculture
America's free market in agriculture, the system that feeds much of the world, has been plowed under by government intervention. Government subsidies, regulation, and taxes have encouraged the centralization of agricultural business. Government export policies hold American farmers hostage to the political whims of both Republican and Democratic administrations. Government embargoes on grain sales and other obstacles to free trade have frustrated the development of free and stable trade relationships between peoples of the world.
The agricultural problems facing America today are not insoluble, however. Government policies can be reversed. Farmers and consumers alike should be free from the meddling and counterproductive measures of the federal government -- free to grow, sell, and buy what they want, in the quantity they want, when they want. Five steps can be taken immediately:
A) Abolition of the Department of Agriculture
B) Elimination of all government farm programs, including price supports, direct subsidies, and all regulation on agricultural production;
C) Deregulation of the transportation industry and abolition of the Interstate Commerce Commission;
D) Repeal of federal inheritance taxes; and
E) Ending government involvement in agricultural pest control. A policy of pest control whereby private individuals or corporations bear full responsibility for damages they inflict on their neighbors should be implemented.
11) Social Security
We favor replacing the current fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, government sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. Pending that replacement, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary. Victims of the Social Security tax should have a claim against government property.
12) Postal Service
We propose the abolition of the government Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages government surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.
13) Civil Service
We propose the abolition of the Civil Service system, which entrenches a permanent and growing bureaucracy upon the land. We recognize that the Civil Service is inherently a system of concealed patronage. We therefore recommend return to the Jeffersonian principle of rotation in office.
14) Election Laws
We call for an end to government control of political parties, consistent with First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries, and conventions.
We urge repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act which suppresses voluntary support of candidates and parties, compels taxpayers to subsidize politicians and political views which many do not wish to support, invades the privacy of American citizens, and protects the Republican and Democratic parties from competition. This law is particularly dangerous as it enables the federal government to control the elections of its own administrators and beneficiaries, thereby further reducing its accountability to the citizens.
Elections at all levels should be in the control of those who wish to participate in or support them voluntarily. We therefore call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns.
Many state legislatures have established prohibitively restrictive laws which in effect exclude alternative candidates and parties from their rightful place on election ballots. Such laws wrongfully deny ballot access to political candidates and groups and further deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We hold that no state has an interest to protect in this area except for the fair and efficient conduct of elections.
Electoral systems matter. The predominant use of "winner-take-all" elections in gerrymandered, single-member districts fosters political monopolies and creates a substantial government-imposed barrier to election of non-incumbent political parties and candidates. We propose electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state, and local levels, such as proportional voting systems with multi-member districts for legislative elections and instant runoff voting (IRV) for single winner elections.
The Australian ballot system, introduced into the United States in the late nineteenth century, is an abridgement of freedom of expression and of voting rights. Under it, the names of all the officially approved candidates are printed in a single government sponsored format and the voter indicates his or her choice by marking it or by writing in an approved but unlisted candidate's name. We should return to the previous electoral system where there was no official ballot or candidate approval at all, and therefore no state or federal restriction of access to a "single ballot." Instead, voters submitted their own choices and had the option of using "tickets" or cards printed by candidates or political parties.
In order to grant voters a full range of choice in federal, state, and local elections, we propose the addition of the alternative "None of the above is acceptable" to all ballots. We further propose that in the event that "none of the above is acceptable" receives a plurality of votes in any election, either the elective office for that term should remain unfilled and unfunded, or there shall be a new election in which none of the losing candidates shall be eligible.
IV) Foreign Affairs
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.
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
A) Diplomatic Policy
1) Negotiations
The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations. We would negotiate with any foreign government without necessarily conceding moral legitimacy to that government. We favor a drastic reduction in cost and size of our total diplomatic establishment. In addition, we favor the repeal of the Logan Act, which prohibits private American citizens from engaging in diplomatic negotiations with foreign governments.
2) International Travel and Foreign Investments
We recognize that foreign governments might violate the rights of Americans traveling, living, or owning property abroad, just as those governments violate the rights of their own citizens. We condemn all such violations, whether the victims are U.S. citizens or not.
Any effort, however, to extend the protection of the United States government to U.S. citizens when they or their property fall within the jurisdiction of a foreign government involves potential military intervention. We therefore call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk. In particular, we oppose -- as unjust tax-supported subsidy -- any protection of the foreign investments of U.S. citizens or businesses.
The issuance of U.S. passports should cease. We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas, or other papers required to cross borders. So long as U.S. passports are issued, they should be issued to all individuals without discrimination and should not be revoked for any reason.
3) Human Rights
We condemn the violations of human rights in all nations around the world. We particularly abhor the widespread and increasing use of torture for interrogation and punishment. We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty.
Until such a global triumph for liberty, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn, however, the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political and revolutionary groups.
The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights. Only private individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue.
4) World Government
We support withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, we oppose any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or placing U.S. troops under U.N. command. We oppose U.S. government participation in any world or international government. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.
5) Secession
We recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right to secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals. Exercise of this right, like the exercise of all other rights, does not remove legal and moral obligations not to violate the rights of others.
B) Military
1) Military Policy
Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect.
The potential use of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to all the peoples of the world, not only Americans. Thus, the objective should be to reduce the risk that a nuclear war might begin and its scope if it does.
We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security. During arms reduction negotiations, and to enhance their progress, the U.S. should begin the retirement of some of its nuclear weapons as proof of its commitment. Because the U.S. has many more thousands of nuclear weapons than are currently required, beginning the process of arms reduction would not jeopardize American security. U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians.
We call on the U.S. government to remove its nuclear weapons from Europe. If European countries want nuclear weapons on their soil, they should take full responsibility for them and pay the cost.
We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems. Accordingly, we oppose any future agreement which would prevent defensive systems on U.S. territory or in Earth orbit.
We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine.
2) Presidential War Powers
We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch.
We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime. The Commander-in-Chief role, correctly understood, confers no additional authority on the President.
C) Economic Policy
1) Foreign Aid
We support the elimination of tax-supported military, economic, technical, and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. We support the abolition of government underwriting of arms sales. We further support abolition of federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. We also oppose the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles which restrict production, limit technological innovation, and raise prices.
We call for the repeal of all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization.
2) International Money
We favor withdrawal of the United States from all international paper money and other inflationary credit schemes. We favor withdrawal from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
We strongly oppose any bailout of foreign governments or American banks by the United States, either by means of the International Monetary Fund or through any other governmental device.
3) Unowned Resources
We oppose any recognition of fiat claims by national governments or international bodies to unclaimed territory. Individuals have the right to homestead unowned resources, both within the jurisdictions of national governments and within such unclaimed territory as the ocean, Antarctica, and the volume of outer space. We urge the development of objective international standards for recognizing homesteaded claims to private ownership of such forms of property as transportation lanes, broadcast bands, mineral rights, fishing rights, and ocean farming rights. All laws, treaties, and international agreements that would prevent or restrict homesteading of unowned resources should be abolished. We specifically hail the U.S. refusal to accept the proposed Law of the Sea Treaty because the treaty excluded private property principles, and we oppose any future ratification.
D) International Relations
1) Colonialism
United States colonialism has left a legacy of property confiscation, economic manipulation, and over-extended defense boundaries. We favor immediate self-determination for all people living in colonial dependencies, such as American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, to free these people from U.S. dominance, accompanied by the termination of subsidization of them at taxpayers' expense. Land seized by the U.S. government should be returned to its rightful owners.
2) Foreign Intervention
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. We would end all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime.
We would repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments.
We would no longer incorporate foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. We would cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. We would end the practice of stationing of American military troops overseas.
We make no exceptions to the above.
3) Space Exploration
We oppose all government restrictions upon voluntary peaceful use of outer space. We condemn all international attempts to prevent or limit private exploration, industrialization, and colonization of the moon, planets, asteroids, satellite orbits, Lagrange libration points, or any other extra-terrestrial resources. We repudiate the principles contained in the U.N. Moon Treaty. We support the privatization of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Omissions
Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
thats it(without going into real detail)...whew :huh:
Libertarians want government which can protect its citizens from attack and is free of any exsessive influences or burdens....
:beerchug: :smoke: :pizza: :guinesssmile: :clap: :angel1:
Alex H
01-21-2004, 04:01 AM
I hope you are able to type with more than two fingers. :D
vidcc
01-21-2004, 04:50 AM
well having read it all i wouldn't like a libetarian government, however some of the policies i support 100%, most i am afraid would be intollerable to any modern society
A totally free market would beneifit only a few and the majority of US citizens would find themselves far worse off. I get the impression that if you are not rich you might just be comfortable.
i feel that you were born in the wrong century and you should be living in the town in "paint your wagon" :lol:
I cannot agree with the health policy, i do agree that in some part government raises the cost however the vast blame falls on the need to create profit above all else and with healthcare you have a captive audience to prey on no matter how much choice of providers you have.
you mentioned choice of insurance level...well what about the choice of the people that CAN'T afford any? I was born and raised in a country with a social national health system. i will not deny that it has it's problems but should i fall ill i would be treated no matter what and even though i paid the upper rate of tax and "social security" the financial burdon to me was vastly less that i pay here in the USA. the government dealt with the drug companies and the drugs were made affordable to the system with the drug company profits still extreamly high (if you want to trade here you play by our rules).
what are your plans to stop desease spreading to the wealthy from the people that can't afford vacinations?
Exactly what is it you believe schools are teaching our children? because i have 3 with one on the way and my 16 year old learns about maths, science, English, history etc. and the school encourages regular meetings with parents to discuss any issues. Without any state funding you have purely education for the wealthy.
Without the taxes you wish to abolish how would you fund all the things that government fund at present, be it national or local, for example the fire service.
as stated in my earlier post although i have to conceede that some of the policies are worthy many are just unacceptable for the good of the majority and i forsee civil unrest being created.
I am not an advocate of comunism but look how the people suffered after the colapse of the soviet union, suddenly the state wasn't providing for them and inflation ran amok, the black economy thrived as basic essential items became unoptainable to all but the wealthy
The USA has a wealth within that could easily fund free education and healthcare for all but that wealth is tied up to the lucky few.
the underlying premise of your manifesto may have good intentions but it is too extreme to make a sucessful society. Government controls for the main part were brought in for the good of society, although i have to agree that some are totally unnecessary
i could go over many more point's which i find too extreme and the reasons why , however i think we should just agree to differ
i wish you good health and hope you never fall prey to your own system
3RA1N1AC
01-21-2004, 08:00 AM
ugh-uh. one o' you guys shoulda moved this off into a libertarian thread already, for people who wanna read about the joys of mixing libertine mores (or lack thereof) with old-fashioned social darwinist laissez-faire-ism.
this thread is supposed ta be about how free speech is being torn asunder by the iron fist of... uh... liberalism. :P
vidcc
01-21-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@21 January 2004 - 08:00
ugh-uh. one o' you guys shoulda moved this off into a libertarian thread already, for people who wanna read about the joys of mixing libertine mores (or lack thereof) with old-fashioned social darwinist laissez-faire-ism.
this thread is supposed ta be about how free speech is being torn asunder by the iron fist of... uh... liberalism. :P
and you are totally free to say that
3RA1N1AC
01-21-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by vidcc@21 January 2004 - 11:27
and you are totally free to say that
god bless the usa.
edit: scratch that. god bless the anti-federalists.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.