Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party

If I am not mistaken, the Libertarians want to legalize marijuana. That counts them out for me, IMO. How they stand on other issues, I'm not familiar with, but they seem to have a liberal bent from what I've seen different members who claim to be libertarians post on this board.

I want a party that is conservative in its core values.

 

There is much in their economics that appeals to me about the Libertarian Party. That's about it. Their stand on social issues puts them in the opposite corner from me, including abortion and drugs. There is also a core within that party that draws heavily on anarchism, that is simply too utopian. Given a choice between the two, I am clearly much closer to the Constitution Party but if they have been captured by the Buchanan isolationists, then I would part with them too.

Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has a proven track record that it stands the better chance against the Demos and GOP.

 

Actually, that's one of the things that attracts me to them. The "War on Drugs" has become a war on civil rights and has ultimately done more harm than good.

It's been damaging to civil rights, cost billions, tied up our courts and prisons and made criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens.

I'm not advocating the use of drugs by any stretch of the imagination, but you don't fix the drug problem by creating an underground drug culture.

Prohibition of liquor sales and distribution in the twenties was a disaster and why we thought it would work with drugs I have no idea.

Drugs are terrible but to try to stop them this way reminds me of the old joke about the guy who goes to the doctor and says, "My right foot hurts", so the doctor stomps down on his left foot. The guy screams in pain and says, "Hey! What'd you do that for?" The doctor replies, "To take your mind off off your right foot".

 

I'm a conservative who leans very much libertarian but I don't believe I could vote for one above the state level.

I would like to but a vote for a libertarian for a federal office is a vote for the Democrats.

 

The core of the LP isn't anarchism. Far from it. Anarchists are, at best, on the fringes of the LP.

There's also a very large contingent of pro-life Libertarians.

 

I would like a melding of the LP and the CP. I would like to see the LP moderate a bit on its legalization of what are currently illegal drugs for the past 100 years, moderate a bit on its free trade stance, and moderate a quite a bit on its open borders stance(and there is a movement among libertarians to do just that on the open borders issue).

I would like to see the CP moderate more toward free trade, moderate in its anti-legalization stance on currently illegal drugs, while I pretty much find nothing wrong with its stance on immigration.

 

Mike McK,

But I didn't say the core, I said a core; nevertheless, I could have probably picked a better word. I would say they are a strongly influential element within the party as they are within the libertarian (small "l") movement.


There's also a very large contingent of pro-life Libertarians.

But their platform is "pro-choice" on abortion.

 

This is taken directly from the LP platform. How is it "pro-choice"?

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.

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 may not be rabidly "pro-life" but I find it to be quite acceptable in our somewhat less than a theocracy form of government.

For comparison purposes, this is taken from the CP platform:

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. In a republic, the taking of innocent life, including the life of the pre-born, may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government — legislative, judicial or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

 

"The" core or "a" core, they're still not either one. They are, at best, a fringe element.

[qb]

Yes but, again, there is a very large pro-life contingent in the LP.

 

And that's the bottom line - which is NOT blurred, not wishy-washy, not straddling the fence - by the CP.

You are either FOR the life and protection of the unborn, or you are NOT. Period.

A mixture of the LP and the CP would create a Frankenstein.

 

Not really. The real monster in American politics is the Demopublican Party.

 

Oh please. How is being for limited, constitutional government considered liberal, in the modern sense? You see, right-wing SheEagle, that's why you right-wingers are no different in substance than left-wingers. You both want to control other people's lives, just in different areas.

 

Uh, I dunno. I just have this mental picture of libertarians lying back enjoying a good toke from a bong with Jimmy Buffet playing in the background. But maybe I'm misinformed.

 

What is a toke and what is a bong?

 

Google, if you don't know.

It's my bedtime.

 

KenH,

I must admit, then, that I'm rather misinformed on the current LP position on abortion, but I submit that it is still a moderated "pro-choice" position, by insisting on taking government out of the issue. That's the same thing the "feminazis" want to do. By making abortion unlimited their goal of getting government out is realized.

How is being for limited, constitutional government considered liberal, in the modern sense?

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I've never thought of the LP as particularly interested in strict construction of the constitution but rather more strongly based on philosophical libertarianism which stood as strongly against state prerogatives in morals legislation authorized by the Tenth Amendment as against any central government expansion.

that's why you right-wingers are no different in substance than left-wingers (to SheEagle)

With all due respect, it seems rather evident you have very little understanding of the substance of at least the Right, or, perhaps, by inference, the Left.


Mike McK,

Yes but, again, there is a very large pro-life contingent in the LP.

And I'm quite glad of that. The fact that the LP has toned down its earlier strong "pro-choice" position is a hopeful sign that LFL has made some advances in the LP.


SheEagle,

Uh, I dunno. I just have this mental picture of libertarians lying back enjoying a good toke from a bong with Jimmy Buffet playing in the background. But maybe I'm misinformed.

Hey, hey, you're getting personal now, sounds like you might be badmouthing us parrotheads.

 

What's a parrothead?