Libertarian Party Act IX

Well we are finally out of the holiday season for me. And that means we can get back to business. The next to last section of the Libertarian Platform. We have certainly covered a lot in all of the first 8 acts, and we now near the finish line. But we aren’t done yet. There are some inportant areas still to be covered and analyzed. I look forward to your thoughts on these three areas…

As always, the areas that are orange are copied directly from the Libertarian Party website. My commentary follows each. Remember to address each other respectfully and use rational logic in your analysis.  

3.3    International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn 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 or revolutionary groups.

This is certainly a big area, isn’t it? But an important one. So let’s take it step by step. An America at peace with the world. How nice would that be? I think they are dead on with this, as I would like to see that as well. Realistically there should be very few instances where we are doing anything other than defending ourselves from attack from abroad. The only area I would change is in a situation like Kuwait, where a clear breach of International Law has occurred and the entire world is contributing to righting it. If the UN Security Council wouldn’t approve it, we couldn’t do it. This would mean Afghanistan and Iraq couldn’t have happened.

But a rare instance such as that would be the only time we would offer foreign military aid. And as far as economic aid, I say we stop that as well. The bottom line is that we cannot seem to find the money to do our own thing without fleecing our citizens, so the rest of the world should be on its own. Eliminating these entanglements and alliances with other countries would keep us out of trouble and perhaps even get the rest of the world to like us a bit more (even though the hypocrites who hate us would kill to come and partake in our freedom).

I believe that everyone absolutely has the right to defend themselves against tyranny, although my definition of tyranny is certainly different than some radical definitions offered. Part of only defending our own country from attacks abroad would eliminate much of the use of force. While I certainly don’t see government’s use of military force as “terrorism”, which I think is what is implied here, I do believe that force against civilians is not within the right of the government. Not within our country, and certainly not outside of it.

The tough part of this whole statement is when we get into situations such as Bosnia, where there is a level of genocide happening. I know that some people feel as though as the pre-eminent world power it is our responsibility to stop stuff like this. I respectfully disagree. It is not our government’s right to determine the fate of those outside of America. We don’t’ have the right to determine who is right or wrong in any conflict that isn’t with us directly. And we further shouldn’t be sacrificing our soldiers to support either side of that cause. National Defense always. National Offense never. It is tough to stay out of conflicts that aren’t our business when they are obviously heinous acts, but I believe we should stay out of it anyway. It isn’t our business to tell any other country what to do.

I also know people have issue with us having no say in situations such as Iran building a nuclear weapon. But I counter with this: If we are keeping our nose out of the business of others, Iran probably doesn’t concern themselves with us nearly as much. At a minimum we move down to low priority for Iran. On the flip side because our military is staying at home and training, Iran knows that should they decide to attack us the response will be overwhelming and may end their country’s existence altogether. I am not one of the “there is no retaliation people.” If Iran shoots a Nuke at us, we turn their country into an uninhabitable wasteland. We were minding our own business; you shouldn’t have poked the lion with a stick.

3.4    Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade.  Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.  Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.  However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

This is a bit of a conundrum for me. Open borders are the asked for thing here. Followed by supporting control of the borders to keep the bad men out. Two great tastes that don’t taste great together. Let’s take them one at a time.

Free trade. I am all about it except for a few small issues. If we play fair, that doesn’t mean other countries will. Japan and China have different philosophies than we do, which boils down to state sponsored and supported businesses in those countries. Toyota and Honda, for example, get tremendous subsidies from their government that Ford and GM don’t. Can US companies compete with those businesses in a truly free US market? I tend to think the answer is no. If you are OK with that, then perhaps you simply disagree with me. That means we would see a dramatic decline in US financial ability globally. I hate having government involved in business at all, but I would hate more to watch US businesses failing left and right against businesses with government support abroad.

As far as the movement of human and financial capital, I am again all for it. But free movement of human capital is tough to do while simultaneously securing our borders. The Visa system is broken, that is for sure. But we still need to control who comes and goes if we want to be secure in the modern world as it stands. Perhaps that changes if all the other things in this platform come to fruition as well.

I am still up in the air as far as the belief that I believe is espoused here. That would be the belief that borders as they stand are nothing more than political BS. It seems that statement means that our made up lines on the map shouldn’t mean anything. Unfortunately if we were the only ones to believe that in today’s world, we are setting ourselves up for failure. And while failure of the US is dream for some who are reading this, it is not mine.


3.5    Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

I am pretty much in agreement with this. I used to not be, but was proven wrong on several stances and have therefore adjusted my thoughts. If Mormons want to have 10 wives, what business is it of mine? If Adam and Steve want to get married, what do I care? I hate bigotry. So I agree that it is repugnant and irrational. Eliminate bigotry of all kinds.

There is a caveat to this for me though. That doesn’t mean that I have to like everyone. And it doesn’t mean that I have to eliminate stereotypes from my mind. If 90% of the people I see with pants dragging off their ass act disrespectful, I retain the right to assume they all do unless they show me otherwise. It isn’t about bigotry; it is about recognizing trends and acting accordingly. And that means profiling is fair game within limits. If Arabs are blowing up planes at a high rate, I think it is OK to look at Arabs a little more closely at airports. That does not mean we have the right to take away their rights. Again it isn’t that I have anything against Arabs. It is just idiotic to ignore proven trends. We wouldn’t do in the stock market, and that is just money. So we shouldn’t ignore trends in people simply for the sake of political correctness (which is a giant load of BS anyway). I don’t dislike black people, as any of my friends will tell you, but I retain the right to dislike CERTAIN black people, and that has nothing to do with the color of their skin. I dislike certain white people just as much.

Finally that last part makes clear sense. Parents absolutely have the right to raise their children as they see fit. That means it doesn’t matter what the government thinks is the right way to raise their child. Government has no say. We may hate bigotry, but that doesn’t mean we have the right to tell a parent that they cannot raise their child to be a bigot. If they want to put their child at that much of a disadvantage in life, it isn’t our right to stop them.

One final part to this section and that is a question for all of you. Are there limits to what we can say about ANYTHING? For example, the ACLU defends the rights of the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group of the lowest scum on the planet whose name tells you what horrible travesty they are happy with. Should we have no say in that as well? If a child’s parents are OK with their little boy being used by a grown man like that, is that something we cannot say anything about as well? Because if we take the step of not allowing that act, as disgusting as it is, isn’t that the first step back towards the majority telling the minority what is acceptable? Next is telling the Mormons what to do again, then the same sex couples, and before you know it we are back where we started. Where is the line that we draw, or do we have to eliminate all lines what so ever?

So there is the second half of Securing Liberty section of the Libertarian platform. I look forward to everyone’s thoughts because there are some thought provoking questions that I am asking. Even when we are trying to do the right thing, we might be allowing some very wrong things. But to not do so would be a step backward according to the principles we are discussing. The final Act is coming soon to a blog near you!