The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

Hi.  New guy here.  Since the Repubs, quit me I switched my party over to Constitution Party.

In a nutshell, what are the main differences between CP and Libertarian Party? ???

The Constitution Party believes the government should legislate morality outlawing gambling and  recreational drugs (alcohol my be iffy).  They take a strong pro-life stance.

Libertarians believe gambling and drugs should be legal and individuals that partake of those do so at their own risk.  Libs seem split on the pro-life issue of abortion, but most agree the decision is best left to a doctor and a patient or should be dealt with at the state level at best.

Continuing the war on drugs is where they really lose me.  As tragic as drug abuse can be, prohibition seems worse.

David Jahn

Members of the Constitution Party are social conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism) and would turn government into a social nanny to make sure that you live how they think you should live based on their own moral barometer.

Not intending to get into a big debate, but CP's platform would leave drugs, abortion, etc. (social nanny) to the States.

The two party's seem to be close in their platforms.

Dear Last Man Out,

Realize that you are on the Libertarian Party of PENNSYLVANIA forum. By it's nature answers will be dealing with a STATE emphasis. No one in the Libertarian Party desires the Federal government shrinking and the Pennsylvania state Government increasing to make up the difference. To a Libertarian, if I understand correctly, states rights is a means to an end; not an end in itself.

I hope that helps,
Samantha

While the two parties are very close, they are different.

The Constitution Party platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php) does take a hard postion on drugs. 

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.

That gives me the impression they want to continue the war on drugs, certainly at the national level. 

They have this to say about abortion:

We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution "to ourselves and our Posterity". Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.

They go on to say:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion 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

That appears to be a strong prolife statement.  Some libertarians would applaud that, but we also have some strong pro-choice members as well who may hold the majority.

They also oppose recognizing rights of gays in any way:

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

Topics like these are what separate the parties.  Respect for freedoms negates banning most things.  To Libertarians, the war on drugs is wrong on many levels and does more harm then good.  I believe the majority of Libertarians (even those who are pro-life) would agree that the decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is best left to a woman and her doctor.  They are the ones who will have to make peace with themselves for their actions.  Finally, gays are as much a part of our culture as anyone.  We can't deny them basic human rights.

Libertarians can continue to debate these issues, whereas the debate seems to be over in the Constitution Party.

I hope that helps.

David Jahn

Okay, thanks all for the clarifications.

As a Bible-believing Christian and a strict Constitutionalist (excluding the un-ratified XIV Amendment), I suppose we could debate varied positions, but that wouldn't be anything more than  synapse-pissing-in-the-wind contest.

I have a high regard for folks that educate themselves enough to realize this federation is a long way down the road, away from individual liberties and are willing to make an effort to regain/retain our rights.

I would be interested in knowing the % of the population that would vote for officials other than the Republicrats and if taken en toto if that would be enough to elect "someone other than".

Here in the U.S. we usually only have one one candidate to vote for than Saddam Huessin's Iraq had, even Afghanastan had 18 candidates to choose from.

Peace.

A coalition party wouldn't be out of the question.  At the heart of the matter, limited government and increased individual liberties are the key.  I never understood why people, particuarly Democrats, are not allowed to voice dissent against a particular platform in the party line.  Lieberman for example, was a life long Democrat, but their left wing base demonizes the man for his support of the war despite his life long work for nearly every other single piece of Democatic Party principle.  I see no reason why Libertarians would take such a stance like the Democratic Party.  Allowing dissent and open discussion of issues is excellent, and I see that's not really the case here.  As far as drugs go, personally, I have nothing against medical marijuana and decriminalizing small amounts that would normally be prosecuted for possession, especially as prisions become overcrowded and violent offenders are released.  Heroin, cocaine, and other hard drugs are a different story.  I've lost a few friends to cocaine, not by death, but just not the same person whatsoever, and I've seen what it's done to them.  I've never seen that from a person who smokes alot of marijuana.  It should be considered a case by case situation, as should nearly every issue. That being said, I think it would be a legitimate government action to drug test welfare recipients.  The system itself needs overhaul, but drug use on the tax payer dime is completely unacceptable.  Again, there's alot of gray area, but I hope this spells out my position a bit for you.

Well this I think is the point, it is right now illegal, and right now you are aware of people using it to their own detriment. Certainly for the people you know the war on drugs is ineffective. The fact that it is illegal did not stop them or their suppliers.

Drug enforcement is expensive in dollars and man power. The ability to violate individual liberty in the name of drug enforcement is huge. There is almost nothing in the Patriot act that can not be done in the name of drug enforcement. Incarceration of drug offenders, who still do drugs while in jail, is expensive.

Gangs and crime syndicates get rich off of the sale of illegal products. It enables them to commit other crimes and corrupts our society. How much money filters it's way through legitimate organizations into politics. It's all tax free.

The question that you will have to ask yourself is, will legalization lead to increased usage? Would the societal detriment caused by the number of people who choose to waste their lives on drugs, out weigh the cost in liberty, dollars and bank rolling other illegal activities. You will always have stupid people who will use the product and devious people who will sell it.

Samantha

All this is true, Samantha.  I would suppose that we could look to countries that have no criminal penalties for drug abuse for keys to how detrimental it is or isn't.

If I could be sure that the lawyers would be kept at bay with a decriminalized drug policy, then I may say, c'est la vie.  But you know sure-as-shit the first time an employer fires a worker for being stoned on the job, or landlord refuses to lease an apartment to a doper, or health insurance company refuses to renew a policy to a doper after an OD in the hospital room, the ACLU will be out to make billions from the real victims of this victimless act. Would there be calls for a Constitutional Amendment for equal rights for dopers?

I had my share of ganji back-in-the-day. I have some regrets about some of my decisions while under the clouds.  As a parent, I will strongly discourage my kids from using, without feeling hypocritical.

Lastmanout

Employers aren't required to employ alcoholics.  Employees are drug and alcohol testing by my employer.
Ending the war on drugs is one thing.  Requiring someone to accomodate them in the work place is something entirely different.  Although I must say I have lost some really talented employees due to them coming up hot for marijuana.  I hate to lose them because they took a toke over the weekend.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to have to work with someone whose judgement is impaired.

Landlords, health insurance...I see those as private contracts. 

David Jahn

Agreed they are contracts, but as you stated, to fire a drunk is difficult under ADA, the dopers would fall into the same category.

Other than that .....

To over state the obvious Libertarian reform would be wide sweeping, ADA clearly has problems to be addressed.

Samantha

ADA definitely has problems.  Look at Odell Thurman, ex-Cincinnat Bengal.  He's suing the NFL for discimination because he has an alcohol problem.  It doesn't excuse him for being irresponsible to get yet another DUI.  I don't mean to pick on the guy, but that's just an example.  If you can't function at work or do your job properly, that's not an ADA issue, that's incompetence.  For an extreme example, let's say someone is a stone mason and later suffers a spinal injury and is incapable of doing the same job.  Absent a trade-specific disability policy, he's not capable of doing that job anymore.  That doesn't mean the company can't shift him to another position within the company to fulfill another role he'd still be qualified to do.  Now, if he was unable to fulfill any other function with the company, had no disability insurance, etc. and was relieved because he simply could not fufill any job position with competence, that's another issue.  That's not discrimination.  Now in an ideal world, he'd have proper insurance and the employer steps up to provide for his income, but that's not the case right now. 

My bottom line on this and other intoxicants, is get as high as you want, but don't expect me to pay for your treatment, broken car, rotted liver, etc.  You want to drive or go to work that's fine too, but as soon as your impaired judgment hurts someone else, you get the book thrown at you, no questions asked.

On a side note, why not have extra low cost Health Insurance policies for the responsible ONLY.  Non-smokers, no recreational drugs or booze, monogamous, no hi-risk activities i.e. rock climbing, sky diving, auto racing.  How would that sit with a Libertarian view?

I'll second all of these positions.

It fits perfectly.  Insurance companies should be able to tailer their policies to the markets they serve. You want to smoke, do drugs, engage in risky hobbies, etc. you pay a higher premium.

David Jahn

LMO -

Yes, the parties are very similar.  I am like you and checked out both parties long ago.  I have read long and hard and the war on drugs is a failure because of government enforcement and driving the price up, thus gang violence like prohibition.  Also, I think with school prayer we differ.  The difference (in my opinion) is each parent should decide where to send their school, religious or secular. My kids will NEVER go to a government school but a school where they pray, teach morals (as i teach at home) and have uniforms.  I feel our founders did not put the word God in the Constitution or Bill of Rights for a reason.  As a church going man myself, I want religion out of government schools for the very reason I don't want the Koran or Hinduism taught at government school.  I also pro-life and you should check-out this website, libertarians for life.  http://www.l4l.org/

Peace out.

I smoke cigarettes, I fully expect to pay more for insurance, as I should.  I feel you though, we should not be footing the bill for others except in our risk category.  If I assume risk it should be pooled with smokers.  Drug users with drug users, etc.  That's the risk management aspect of insurance.  I refuse to have my tax money or insurance funds go to abortion (of which I am morally opposed to) or to pay for another person's drug addiction.  Drug addiction centers can be opened and run by charitable organizations and that's fine.  The government should offer limited run facilities but don't forget people do make the choice to engage in the risky behavior in the first place, again, I know because I smoke, and I should probably quit, but I know and accept the risks involved.  Morally, however, I do not think I should be helping to pay for needles for addicts out of tax money, etc.

The FF may have left GOD out of the US Constitution because it should be left to the States to decide to fund public education, and States MAY have a State religion i.e. Rhode Island and others.
If the current school system will not allow my children to hear about the historical references to my Christian faith, then do not force me to pay for your secular-faith system and have me jump through hoops when we decide to withdraw our kids to educate them ourselves. 

That is the essence of personal resonspibilty.  You go to the doctor for any reason, especially if it is self-inflicted, you pay....not me.  Why do we have so many overweight people?  Because they are not charged a premium for being overweight.  (how many overweight amish are there?)   

Ride without a helmet, sorry, your paying up.  Not wearing a seatbelt, same thing.  Sex and have children and aids, sorry...I did the right thing, I work, go to school, pay my bills....why should I pay for your illegitamate child, their welfare and healthcare costs (socialism)? 

Could go on and on.  Smoke, DUI, drugs, sky-diving, solo-aircaft, mountain climing, build a home in flood zone, promiscous sex, porn, gambling......personal responsibily.  You pay when you play.  Don't expect me to say your tail.