Posted by: reddiva | January 11, 2010

Why Libertarianism is Just Plain Wrong


Candidates such as Rand Paul in the Kentucky Senate race frighten me for my country.  He is running as a Republican, but his views and opinions are more closely lined with the Libertarian Party.  Like father – like son.

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.

[…]

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Those words are the Preamble to the National Platform of the Libertarian Party.

“The world we seek to build…”  “Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free…”  Libertarians will tell you they are not in the business of nation-building.  I find this contradictory in the extreme.

Their “Statement of Principles” goes even further to undermine and destroy our Constitution.  I carefully thought out those words before I chose them.  I believe them to be correct from my reading of the entire platform referenced above.  I have touched on just a few of these “Statements” below.  Please read the entire list for yourself – I couldn’t make this up if I tried.

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.

[…]

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.

I have a ceramic lamb I’ll give you for three pounds of beef.  And would you mind cooking that for me as well?  Aren’t marriage licenses contracts?  They want to abolish contracts, right?  That sounds like some of the things going on in the Obama administration.

So, exactly WHAT do they believe?  What is it that makes this dangerous to our nation and our Constitution?

1.0    Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Do they not expect the government to make laws?  If that is the case, why do they seek political office?  What is it they truly hope to gain?

1.1    Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

In other words, they may not agree with child pornography, but it is fine for those who enjoy such as this.  Where do they draw the line between my rights and the rights of someone else who is offended when I tell them “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays?”   No creche on City Hall grounds, but don’t put up a sign saying “There is no God but self.”

1.3    Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

Homosexuality is okay because someone somewhere believes it is.  Here they go contradicting themselves again.  Homosexuality is an abomination to God according to the Bible. Therefore it offends me.  Since anyone who practices homosexuality would be abridging my rights, does that mean they must cease and desist?

1.4    Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

I’m confused.  Didn’t they just say in 1.0 that no individual may initiate force against another person?  Isn’t abortion issuing force on another person – two people actually – by another person?  In the first place it forces a woman’s body to go through a birth process without her body being ready.  In the second place, what kind of force on another human being is scraping that person out of it’s “home?”

2.2    Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior. (emphasis mine)

2.9    Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


If I should choose to make an end-of-life decision for myself that involved euthanasia, that would be okay with the Libertarians.  That’s suicide and that’s wrong any way you try to spell it.


3.7    Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Let’s be all things to all people so we can overthrow the government together – as a nation.  Sure – that’ll work.  Not a bad idea, just rather impractical.  Do they not understand that the very reason for the Constitution was to centralize and delegate the laws by which all of our states should abide while at the same time providing direction to the states for governing themselves?  Or should we just overthrow our state governments as well?

4.0    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.

I love this one.  It’s the standard disclaimer that you find at the end of any contract.  “We don’t approve of what you’re doing but that’s okay – do it anyway.”  America was founded on the rule of law.  Even this disclaimer effectively removes that.

I know these are only my opinions, and you are entitled to your own opinion whether or not you agree with me.  All I ask from you is the same respect – don’t force me to believe what you do.  This is the very reason I have not and will not support any particular political party with my time, efforts or money.  If I find a candidate I choose to support, I can support him or her directly.  That allows my voice to be heard directly by the candidate of my choosing.

Children need guidance.  They need restrictions and much help making decisions about right and wrong.  So do adults.  That’s what laws are for.  The platform of any political party is not law.  The Constitution is.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. America was founded on individual liberty and local government no more than one day’s horseback ride from the governed. The 19th century Democrat was the staunch defender of state’s rights, which, under Federalists, Whigs and Republicans was assigned the role of slavery’s justifiers. The civil war cost us local government, the laws affecting behavior rising to the states and then the Federal government, way outside the one-day horseback distance rule that worked so well. The vigilante movements in the West and South were remnants of local home rule, where citizens concerned with the way they were governed took action to right the wrongs. The Tea Party Movement is another example of citizen participation against the governing elite centered far, far from the folks. It demonstrates the founding ideals of America are still the dominant tradition. The 20th century Democrats have declared war on Tea Parties as vigilantes and on America’s founding traditions, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS, Our Lost Libertarian Roots

    • I do not go to other web sites to advertise my blog, and I won’t accept it here. Your comment however is appreciated. Thank you for stopping by.

  2. Wow! That was an excellent piece of constructive criticism of the the libertarian platform.

    • That’s very nice of you to say, Whitney. I appreciate the comment.

  3. […] } On January 11, I posted an article about why the Libertarian Party scares me for America.  In that article, I provided information from their own party platform.  For many people, that […]


Categories

%d bloggers like this: