Category Archives: Libertarian

On January 22nd 2017, I woke up early to catch up with some work. As I turned my computer on, I saw a Facebook post shared by a friend. It was a video showing a group of masked men and women beating a 20-year-old girl to a pulp.

What was going on there? Why were they doing this?-

After playing the video a few times, just to believe what I was watching, I started reading the title of the post which said, 20 Y.O. girl beaten by a group of radical leftists because she was wearing a bracelet with the Spanish flag.

One of the brave participants was Alejandro Espin Sogo, A.K.A. Topi, the local leader, and candidate in the last local elections in the city of Murcia, for the communist coalition Ganar Cehegin (Win Cehegin), he is also member of the group Alternativa Socialista (Socialist Alternative). On Tuesday seven of the (at least) 9 perpetrators had been arrested, but they were set free from charges by the judge what?! Yes, exactly!

Alejandro Espin Sogo a.k.a. Topi in a political pamphlet for the last local elections.

The brutal attack took place during Saturday night at the entrance of a local pub. The victim, who was with some friends, was harassed by one of the female leftists for her bracelet which had a small Spanish flag.

She ignored them and went outside to smoke a cigarette but she was followed by the whole group of at least 12 leftists and then beaten to a pulp with no prior exchange of words. Bystanders just watched and did nothing for fear of reprisals.

You dear libertarians from America and all over the world must be asking yourself just because she loves her country? The answer is yes!

The Spanish left is one of the most violent and reactionary political groups in all Europe. They believe that anything that has to do with patriotism, freedom of expression, or individual rights is fascist.

Whenever the left has governed this country (Spain) you could see how they divided society to amazing extremes. They bankrupted the country, and if you look at history as a teacher you can learn how they were responsible for pushing the country towards its last civil war (1936 to 1939).

They created such fear in the population that now almost no one dares to display a Spanish flag openly, besides in the Olympics and international soccer matches.

You cant even identify yourself as religious for fear of backlash and public humiliation.

On January 2nd, during the celebration commemorating the fall of the last Muslim territory in Spain, in 1492, the people from that same party demanded we apologized to Muslims for kicking them out!

The worst part of all this is that the millennials of Spain buy into this regressive and decadent crap, because they have been brainwashed by media and the education system into feeling what I call Spanish Guilt.

Please, my dear American libertarians, and libertarians around the world; take this as a warning. When the left moves into your country its like having termites, no biggie in the beginning, but if you dont deal with it, it cant take down the pillars of your country and culture.

* Eric Velez is a Spanish-American dual citizen, libertarian, small business owner, freelance photographer and millennial.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Go here to read the rest:

A Warning From A Spanish Libertarian - Being Libertarian (satire)

The Libertarian Party, and fellow plaintiffs, won a victory in federal court this week in the case of Level the Playing Field v. FEC. (The full background of the case can be read from reporting here when it was first assigned its day in court and when the oral arguments occurred.)

Gary Johnson Facebook

To quote from my previous reporting summing up what was at issue in the lawsuit, which while technically against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is ultimately targeting the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for locking out third parties while pretending to be nonpartisan, the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs claim that:

the CPD has always been a deliberate duopoly for the two major parties and has "been violating FECA and FEC regulations limiting debate-sponsoring organizations' ability to use corporate funds to finance their activities" since its efforts are not truly "nonpartisan."

The suit accuses the FEC of "refus[ing] to enforce the law and ignored virtually all of this evidence in conclusorily dismissing the complaints even though there is plainly reason to believe that the CPD is violating FECA...."...

"The Court should...direct the FEC to do its job, which is to enforce the law and put an end to the CPD's biased, anti-democratic, and fundamentally corrupt and exclusionary polling rule."

Judge Tayna Chutkan in U.S. District Court for D.C. agreed with the L.P. and others that the FEC was derelict in its duties when it blithely refused to act on the those complaints about the CPD.

Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").... in dismissing two administrative complaints regarding the CPD and in denying a petition to engage in rulemaking to change the FEC's regulations regarding debate staging organizations.

Judge Chutkan explains how CPD's operations should be affected by the FEC and its enforcement of election finance law:

The debate staging regulation...acts as an exemption to the general ban on corporate contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political campaigns or candidates. To prevent debate staging organizations such as the CPD from operating as conduits for corporate contributions made to benefit only one or two candidates from the Democratic and Republican partiesvia the much-watched prime-time debatesthe regulations require these organizations to (1) be nonpartisan, (2) not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or campaigns, and (3) use pre-established, objective criteria.

If a debate staging organization fails to comply with the regulations, such as failing to use objective criteria in determining which candidates participate in its debates, then the value of the debate is actually a contribution or expenditure made to the participating political campaigns in violation of the Act.

The Act provides that any person who believes a violation of the Act has occurred may file an administrative complaint with the FEC...

The L.P. and its co-plaintiffs filed such a complaint in September 2014, as well as "a Petition for Rulemaking with the FEC [that] asked the FEC...to specifically bar debate staging organizations from using a polling threshold as the sole criterion for accessing general election presidential and vice-presidential debates."

They were not satisfied with the FEC's reaction, leading to the current lawsuit "challenging the dismissal of their administrative complaint...and the agency's decision not to engage in rulemaking" about the debate threshold.

Judge Chutkan agrees that the FEC did a shoddy and careless job in actually considering and reacting to the arguments and evidence the L.P. and others presented about the potential partisanship of CPD, and thus:

the court cannot defer to the FEC's analysis and further concludes that the FEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law when it determined that the CPD did not endorse, support, or oppose political parties in the 2012 election....On remand, the FEC is ORDERED to articulate its analysis in determining whether the CPD endorsed, supported, or opposed political parties or candidates....

....the FEC must demonstrate how it considered the evidence, particularly, but not necessarily limited to, the newly-submitted evidence of partisanship and political donations and the expert analyses regarding fundraising and polling.

As for the argument that the CPD's 15 percent polling requirement for third party access is not properly objective and is in fact clearly designed to privilege major parties, Judge Chutkan:

GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion....as to whether the FEC's analysis of the criterion's objectivity was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. While the court cannot and does not mandate that the FEC reach a different conclusion on remand, the court notes that the weight of Plaintiffs' evidence is substantial, and the FEC must demonstrate that it actually considered the full scope of this evidence, including the CPD chairmen's and directors' partisan political activity and the expert reports, as well as explain how and why it rejected this evidence in deciding that the CPD's polling requirement is an objective criterion

Judge Chutkan spells out that the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs:

clearly argued, and attempts to establish with significant evidence, that in presidential elections CPD's polling threshold is being used subjectively to exclude independent and third-party candidates, which has the effect of allowing corporations to channel money to the CPD's expenditures to the C campaigns they would be prohibited from giving the campaigns directly.

It further argued and presented evidence that polling thresholds are particularly unreliable and susceptible to this type of subjective use at the presidential level, undermining the FEC's stated goal of using "objective criteria to avoid the real or apparent potential for a quid pro quo, and to ensure the integrity and fairness of the process." In its Notice, the FEC brushed these arguments aside....

Judge Chutkan is thus demanding the FEC do a better job actually grappling with those arguments. This does not mean that the CPD is on the ropes or will somehow instantly be required to either give up its firewall against third parties or stop taking in the corporate bucks.

But it does mean the FEC is going to have to come up with convincing reasons why the CPD isn't bipartisan rather than nonpartisan and why the CPD's debate inclusion criteria are fair and objective and not partisan. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Via the always indispensable Ballot Access News.

See the rest here:

Libertarian Party Gets Victory in Suit Aimed at the Partisanship of Commission on Presidential Debates - Reason (blog)

Omer Yusuf , USA TODAY NETWORK Tennessee 2:56 p.m. CT Jan. 30, 2017

America for Prosperity's Andy Ogles speaks at the Delta Regional Conference Wednesday at the Samuel T. Bryant Distillery in Jackson.(Photo: OMER YUSUF/The Jackson Sun)Buy Photo

Libertarian Party of Madison Countychair Corbin Brown was confused when he heard about Gov. Bill Haslams gas tax proposal.

Brown said the states $800 million-plus surplus makes the proposal unnecessary.

This is one more way for the government to take which does not belong to them, Brown said. Its our money they are taking away from us.

Earlier this month, Haslam proposed a 7-cents-per-gallon increase on gasoline to the states gas tax and a 12-cents-per-gallon increase on diesel. If approved, it would be the first time since 1989 Tennessee has raised its gas tax.

Haslam said the additional $227.8 million in revenue, generated by the gas tax, would go toward completing transportation projects across Tennessee.

The gas tax proposal was the big issue discussed Wednesday at the Libertarian Party of Tennessee Delta Regional Conference at Samuel T. Bryant Distillery. Brown said the Libertarian Party will head to Nashville on Feb. 13 to speak out against Haslams proposal.

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971. According to their party platform, Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into personal, family and business decisions. They believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as long as they do not harm one another.

Libertarian Gary Johnson ran for president of the United States in 2012 and 2016. Johnson received more than four million votes in the 2016 election.

Tennessee has two Libertarian elected officials. Wallace Redd in Clarksville City Council, Ward 4, and Mike Sexton, Union County Commissioner in District 6.

Jesse Fullington is running as a Libertarian for state representativein the 79th District.

Fullington said he wants great roads but raising taxes is not the answer and Haslams tax cuts, a notable one being the grocery tax rate going from 5 percent to 4.5 percent, is not enough.

When youre driving, spending more money at the pump, it costs more money to move things around, Fullington said. Can you name one thing not transported without fuel? By the nature of raising transportation costs, its going to raise the value of the product. So groceries might be cheaper tax wise, but they will be more expensive. It either balances out and hits zero or the increase in the value of the product is going to be more than what the tax was to begin with.

President and CEO of the Jackson Chamber Kyle Spurgeon said Haslams proposal is an opportunity for the issue of infrastructure and transportation to be addressed.

Spurgeon said he will pay close attention to discussion over the next few months.

You want to make sure you have a good feeling your tax dollars are being spent wisely, Spurgeon said. Its about how our tax dollars can be spent in the wisest manner to give us the most return on our investment on our highway infrastructure.

The Libertarian Party is clear on their views, but the biggest challenge its facing long-term in Tennessee is visibility and ballot access.

Brown said when the Madison County Libertarian Party started holding meetings last year, he was the only one there but eventually a handful of people began attending the meetings.

We are building that base and were getting the information out there but it is a slow process, Brown said.

If the Libertarian Party does not get at least 34,000 signatures in the state of Tennessee before the summer of 2018, all their Tennessee candidates, including Fullington, will have to run as independents during the 2018 midterm elections.

Weve got until July 2018 to hit that goal, Brown said. Its not just about face-to-face. Its social media. This is our main goal. Anything else we want to do rests upon that foundation.

Reach Omer Yusuf at oyusuf@jacksonsun.com. Follow him on Twitter: @OmerAYusuf

If approved, it would be the first time since 1989 that Tennessee has raised its gas tax.(Photo: C.B. SCHMELTER/The Jackson Sun)

Gov. Bill Haslam said a tax increase would give the state's Department of Transportation an additional $227.8 million in funds.(Photo: C.B. SCHMELTER/The Jackson Sun)

Read or Share this story: http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/30/libertarians-against-gas-tax/97253266/

See the article here:

Libertarians against gas tax - Jackson Sun

Picture credit: The Huffington Post

Recently graduating from a left-leaning university, in a left-leaning city, with a majority left-leaning friends, all of whom are overly-equipped with cuddle bears and safe spaces, every day Ive had to suffer through hearing about the glorious socialist utopia that would come about with a Bernie Sanders presidency.

Having actually studied political science, focusing heavily on various countries policies and economics, I have to fight a constant urge where I dont lower myself to the lefts standards and go on a peaceful protest rampage. Fortunately, it has never come to that. Being well-equipped with a basic knowledge of economics and morality, one can ask three simple questions to stun any Bernie bro.

This is probably one of the best arguments against Sanders specific idea of socialism, as his views are radical even for a modern socialist.

While socialism never works in the long run, as we have seen with Venezuelas collapse and Sweden and Denmarks reduction in benefits and fragile economic systems, there are measures that can prolong its life.

Sweden and Denmark, both the golden standard for socialists, have some the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. In Sweden and Denmark, the corporate tax rate is 22 percent; whereas in the United States, we have a whopping tax rate of 38.9 percent; the second highest in the world. For socialism to be sustainable, even if it is only in the short run, Sweden and Denmark understood the necessity for investment. They needed incentives for companies to move to their country and employ their population.

As mentioned before, this still isnt enough to save them from disaster that occurs from any type of economic change, which usually leads to heightened unemployment, budget imbalance and increased deficit, and the inevitable removal or reduction in welfare benefits. However, Sweden and Denmarks policy on low corporate tax rates is something Bernie never addresses. Hedoesnt understand this and seeks only to ridicule corporations and the wealthy; the very people that provide the economic means to make socialism as sustainable as it will ever be. Could you imagine a millennial wrapping his head around the idea of lowering tax rates for those evil corporations? Me neither.

This is, arguably, the biggest flaw in Sanders socialist dream.

While this should be common knowledge for a Bernie supporter, youll find many dont actually know the answer or have looked at the in-depth causal effect of what is proposed.

Quoting from Bernie Sanders official site, he states: There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. While this figure is mostly accurate, there are debates about its validity. Politifact references fellow libertarian Daniel Mitchell when he argues that tax laws in the late 20th century required high income taxpayers to report capital income, while middle income citizens didnt have to. Despite this fact, Mitchell goes on to say that the rich arent rich because the poor are poor; the rich are rich, because they are innovative and provide services which others want.

Back to the question at hand. While Bernie mostly relies on demonizing the wealthy, there are instances where he provides a plan to redistribute the wealth.

They consist of raising taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, providing government-funded youth programs, and other expensive programs, all to be billable to higher income individuals. At this time, the top 10 percent already pay 68 percent of all federal income taxes and 53 percent of all federal taxes in general.

What happens when that tax rate widens and the wealthy pay more in taxes and middle class pays less? If you believe those in the top 10 percent are millionaires, youre very wrong. The income for the top 1 to 10 percent is between $380,354 to $113,799. In other words, essentially anyone that owns and operates a successful business. The people that took a risk with their own money, bet on themselves, and came out positive; the people that are providing jobs to the middle class; the people that have to put payroll on their own credit card and often use their own funds to invest in their company; those are the people that Bernie Sanders wants to tax even more, and he hides that fact by having the public perceive the top 10 percent as fat oil men sitting on a mountain of cash.

By redistributing wealth, you are essentially taking money from those that provide the jobs for everyone else, invest and take rise, and essentially keep the economy going. Not only is it morally wrong, but economically idiotic.

The American Dream is based on an idea that anyone can succeed in this country if they have the desire to work hard enough. It is one of the major reasons that America has had the most successful economy since World War II.

The government, specifically under Reagan and Clinton, facilitated an environment where people could achieve anything, because the government would interfere as little as possible. It is why the Reagan and Clinton years (despite the Democrats stance on the economy today, Clintonomics was very much in favor of being enterprise-friendly and making the government smaller) were some of the best economic years in American history.

Bernie Sanders plan is to go against this logical concept, and label the successful and wealthy as the enemy and everyone else as the victim. So, if a successful economy is determined by innovation and a strong working class as Reagan and Clinton proved how do you incentivize people to take risk on themselves and open businesses or try to get a promotion and make more money, when the more money you make, the more is taken away?

* Braden Paynter is your average Joe Schmoe, who loves his country and all the freedom it entails. He has received an education in political science and international politics, being one of the few in his class to emerge without shouting leftist propaganda at the top of his lungs.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:

3 Questions for Bernie Supporters - Being Libertarian

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Weld defended Hillary Clinton on her private email scandal and playedattack dog on Donald Trump.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Johnson seemed sleepy, but he answered a question at length about THC amounts in marijuana and another from a young man asking about legalized prostitution. Johnson onlylightly and perfunctorily criticized Clinton, instead focusing most of his low-energy attacks on Trump. He also revealed a personal gluten allergy and said that he himself would not patronize the services of prostitutes.

These two marginal politicians are clearly enjoying the spotlight that the pro-Clinton media arefinally giving them in their effort to stop Trump. (Something tells me the folks at CNN have not secretly been reading Reason magazine all these years.)

The Johnson-Weld team seems to think that libertarianism is mostly about admitting as many immigrants to the United States as possible. This is a far cry from Ron Pauls pro-borders libertarian movement of a few years ago. The libertarian movement has shifted to the progressive globalist Left.

Bill Weld has called Clinton by and large a good secretary of state, and Johnson has called her a wonderful public servant.

When Johnson criticizes Clinton, he often goes after her for big government spending in a bald-faced attempt to sound conservative and to peel off Trumps support with the #NeverTrump crowd.

A top Clinton-supporting official at the libertarian Niskanen Center think tank (which advocates for more Syrian refugee settlement in America) spelled out the strategy in no uncertain terms: the Libertarians need to adopt a Right-sounding platform so they can take some of Trumps support and prop up Clinton.

Did you notice that the mainstream networks began touting a Clinton lead in a new 3-Way Poll.

But what about Jill Stein? Will CNN give Green Party candidate Jill Stein the same primetime platform?

Libertarian insiders, by their own admission, went into their convention in Orlando with one modest goal: to nominate Gary Johnson against various insurgent challengers, including Gonzo software recluse John McAfee, and then to get fivepercent of the popular vote in November to get the party on future state ballots. This could be the year, the insiders said. The fivepercent year!

Everyone who gets paid by the Kochs says so, longtime Libertarian insider Tim Cavanaugh quipped when the Johnson-Weld ticket was taking shape.

See, Gary Johnson does not just have a weed habit. He also has a Koch problem. As Breitbart News first reported, the Kochs secret Beltway bank pulled out of the race as soon as it became clear Trump was going to be the nominee, but they left the door open to supporting Clinton.

Indeed, a source within the Johnson campaign wanted people to think that Johnsonhad a Koch connection, leaking to the Daily Caller that tens of millions were heading Johnsonsway. They were not hiding it. The Libertarian party chairman begged like a dog for Koch money in a press conference in Orlando.

The Libertarians are finally showing their hand: theyre globalist Clintonites.

This is what happens when Koch-funded activists straight out of liberal arts college join Koch-funded Washington advocacy groups that throw happy hours aimed at Conservatariansbecause Libertarian Koch-funded people are totally friendly to the tea party!

The Kochs run the tea party, dont they? Thats certainly how the Kochs made it seem in the mainstream media after they started funding, funding, funding things attached to what was once a leaderless tea party revolution in this country that aimed to disrupt the power of the elites.

And then when the chips are down and Hillary Clinton goes for the White House, the Kochs roll over. And William Weld defends Clintonon the emails.

Congratulations, Libertarian movement. You guys finally went Left enough on immigration to make it onto CNN in primetime!

Maybe Don Lemon will come to the next happy hour. Just tell him not to bring gluten.

Read the rest here:

Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump ...

LP Texas hold conventions at the precinct, county, district, state, and national level. The state convention will be in San Antonio, Texas April 8-10. The national convention will be in Orlando Florida May 27-30. Anyone may attend the conventions and all interested in the LP are encouraged to do so. The state and national conventions have speakers and panels and are not just business meetings.

Tuesday, March 8th @ 7pm Norris Conference Center,Park North Shopping Center, 618 NW Loop 410 #207, San Antonio, TX 78216, Live Oak Room Please arrive on time to help with the verification and check in.

Saturday, March 12th @ 1pm Luby's,4541 Fredericksburg Rd, San Antonio, TX 78201 Plese arrive on time or early for check in. The convention will start very soon after 1pm. The District Conventions will include US Congressional District 35 and Texas Senate District 26. Additional may be scheduled as we get closer to convention time.

Saturday, March 19th @ 1pm Luby's,4541 Fredericksburg Rd, San Antonio, TX 78201

Friday, April 8th - Sunday, April 10th Norris Conference Center,Park North Shopping Center, 618 NW Loop 410 #207, San Antonio, TX 78216 Find out more atLibertyNow.organd be sure to reserveyour tickets! Convention Accomodations: DoubleTree Hotel @ $99/night

Friday, May 27th - Monday, May 30th. (Non convention meetings start May 25th) Rosen Centre Hotel 9840 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32819 You can go to thenational convention pageor get reservations.

Note: Our LNC Representative, Kevin Ludlow, is putting together a LP Convention bus trip. LPCon2016.com has all the information. You can reserveyou seat now to get on the bus.

To be a delegate you need to affiliate with the LP at our conventions. The starting point for this is the precinct conventions. Although not required, it is highly encouraged to bring your voter registration card to make things go quickly and smoothly.

Pleasedirect questionsto Bexar LP Chair, Gil Robinson @210-957-9780|chair@lpbexar.org

2016Convention Information Guide

Visit link:

Libertarian Party of Bexar County Texas | "Liberty and ...

The Libertarian Party (LP) is your representative in American politics.We are the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.

The Platform is our official statement on issues. It is edited and adopted every two years.

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.

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.

What do Libertarians have in common with liberals? What do Libertarians have in common with conservatives? Findanswers to these and other frequently-asked-questions here.

Connect with your state affiliate and see what is happening locally.

The Libertarian Party (LP)is governed by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC). Learn more aboutwho currently serves on the committee.

LNC Staff work at the partyheadquarters in Alexandria, VA, and remotely.Learn more about these Libertarians working for you.

See the original post here:

Libertarian Party | Libertarian Party

By Tom Head

This is not a specific criticism of the Libertarian Party, mind you; the Democratic and Republican party platforms are much, much more turgid (to the point where they can't be read in one sitting), much more vague (to the point where they often sound as if they're advocating the same policies), and much more abstract (relying on Mom-and-apple-pie patriotic rhetoric instead of concrete policy proposals). But the difference is that the Democratic and Republican parties have enough money to pay people to run campaigns that give us an idea of what the parties stand for.

The Libertarian Party doesn't have that much money, so I'm proud to present the world's shortest platform summary of the party that brought you the World's Shortest Political Quiz.

Fiscal Policy: Very right-libertarian. The Libertarian Party opposes taxation in pretty much all forms, and deals with the revenue loss by opposing entitlement programs in pretty much all forms. This means that people keep more of what they earn, but it also means that there is no social safety net. And ambitious new proposals--such as universal pre-kindergarten and universal health care--are obviously not compatible with this objective.

Corporations: Eliminate all federal subsidies to private corporations, as well as all antitrust laws.

Public Services: Eliminate the Postal Service. Transfer all government services, from public schools to landfills, to private ownership.

Property Rights: Would restrict public domain to immediate public use, and sell or give away most public property to private owners.

Criminal Justice: Would eliminate all antidrug laws and legalize prostitution. Would end random police roadblocks.

Free Speech: Would abolish the FCC and allow private ownership of broadcast frequencies. Opposes all restriction of free speech, including free speech restricted in the name of national security.

Church and State: Calls for reduced IRS regulation and monitoring of tax-exempt churches.

Second Amendment: Strongly opposes all gun control, as well as regulation of alternative weapon technologies (mace, Tasers, and so forth).

The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft.

Reproductive Rights: Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization.

LGBT Rights: Opposes "don't ask, don't tell." Believes that marriage is a private contract, and should yield no government benefits regardless of the gender of the partners.

Immigrants' Rights: Argues that borders should be open but surveilled--everyone who does not pose a threat to public health or national security should be allowed to enter the country legally. Would eliminate all federal benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Original post:

The Libertarian Party Platform - A Quick Summary

subscribeunsubscribe143,791 readers

289 users here now

Frequently Asked Questions

IRC CHANNEL: ##Austrians on irc.freenode.net

Webchat Link: /r/libertarian's in #Austrians IRC channel

This subreddit is about the political philosophy. For discussion of the ongoing presidental campaign, consider using /r/garyjohnson. We are in no way affiliated with the Libertarian Party.

/r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Reading Group

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia

Discussion Thread

Topics:

Types of Libertarianism:

People:

LP nominee - Gary Johnson

On Authority:

On War:

Libertarians Around the World:

Informed Discussion:

Major Subreddits:

External:

a community for 8 years

This is a new ad format that we are currently testing. We often try new types of ads in a limited capacity. If you have feedback, please let us know in the ads subreddit.

This area shows new and upcoming links. Vote on links here to help them become popular, and click the forwards and backwards buttons to view more.

Enter a keyword or topic to discover new subreddits around your interests. Be specific!

You can access this tool at any time on the /subreddits/ page.

Rendered by PID 17544 on app-398 at 2016-11-21 16:14:38.353912+00:00 running 220e8da country code: US.

Follow this link:

Libertarian Reddit: Social News from a Libertarian Point of ...

Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

Some of us call ourselves individualists, but others point out that the opposition often uses that word to describe a heartless person who doesnt care about the problems and aspirations of other people.

Some of us call ourselves conservatives, but that term describes many persons who base their approval of an institution more on its age than on its inherent worth.

Many of us call ourselves liberals. And it is true that the word liberal once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding.

Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word libertarian.

Websters New International Dictionary defines a libertarian as One who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action.

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violencelegal or illegalto impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.

A libertarian believes that the government should protect all persons equally against external and internal aggression, but should otherwise generally leave people alone to work out their own problems and aspirations.

While a libertarian expects the government to render equal protection to all persons against outright fraud and misrepresentation, he doesnt expect the government to protect anyone from the consequences of his own free choices. A libertarian holds that persons who make wise choices are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their wisdom, and that persons who make unwise choices have no right to demand that the government reimburse them for their folly.

A libertarian expects his government to establish, support, and enforce the decisions of impartial courts of justicecourts which do not recognize or refer to a persons race, religion, or economic status. If justice is to be rendered, the decisions of these courts must be as binding upon government officials and their actions as upon other persons and their actions.

A libertarian respects the right of every person to use and enjoy his honestly acquired propertyto trade it, to sell it, or even to give it awayfor he knows that human liberty cannot long endure when that fundamental right is rejected or even seriously impaired.

A libertarian believes that the daily needs of the people can best be satisfied through the voluntary processes of a free and competitive market. And he holds the strong belief that free persons, using their own honestly acquired money, are in the best possible position to understand and aid their fellow men who are in need of help.

A libertarian favors a strictly limited form of government with many checks and balancesand divisions of authorityto foil the abuses of the fearful power of government. And generally speaking, he is one who sees less, rather than more, need to govern the actions of others.

A libertarian has much faith in himself and other free persons to find maximum happiness and prosperity in a society wherein no person has the authority to force any other peaceful person to conform to his viewpoints or desires in any manner. His way of life is based on respect for himself and for all others.

A libertarian doesnt advocate violent rebellion against prevailing governmentsexcept as a last resort before the concentration camps. But when a libertarian sees harm rather than good in certain acts of government, he is obligated to try his best to explain to others who advocate those measures why such compulsory means cannot bring the ends which even they desire.

The libertarians goal is friendship and peace with his neighbors at home and abroad.

It is not the difference in taste between individuals that Libertarians object to, but the forcing of ones tastes upon another.

Charles T. Sprading

The idea of governing by force another man, who I believe to be my equal in the sight of God, is repugnant to me. I do not want to do it. I do not want any one to govern me by any kind of force. I am a reasoning being, and I only need to be shown what is best for me, when I will take that course or do that thing simply because it is best, and so will you. I do not believe that a soul was ever forced toward anything except toward ruin.

Samuel Milton Jones

Liberty for the few is not liberty. Liberty for me and slavery for you means slavery for both.

Samuel Milton Jones

The institutions of civil liberty leave each man to run his career in life in his own way, only guaranteeing to him that whatever he does in the way of industry, economy, prudence, sound judgment, etc., shall redound to his welfare and shall not be diverted to someone elses benefit. Of course it is a necessary corollary that each man shall also bear the penalty of his own vices and his own mistakes.

We are told what fine things would happen if every one of us would go and do something for the welfare of somebody else; but why not contemplate also the immense gain which would ensue if everybody would do something for himself?

Wherever collective standards, codes, ideals, and motives take the place of individual responsibility, we know from ample experience that the spontaneity and independent responsibility which are essential to moral vigor are sure to be lost.

William Graham Sumner

View post:

Who Is a Libertarian? | Foundation for Economic Education