Beefy: The Libertarian Party of Hawaii

[Cypress]

I found the link for you Beefy. Even in the People's Socialist Republic of Hawaii, there is a local Libertarian chapter for you :

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii
http://www.libertarianpartyofhawaii.org/

Platform of the Libertarian Party platform include the following:

A self-regulating free market economy (primarily by voluntary consumer groups), including support of the right to keep and bear arms, opposition to drug prohibition, and elimination of the state-supported social welfare system and indeed all taxation for voluntary alternatives along lines of the Libertarian originated Alaska Permanent Fund.

Strong civil liberties including free speech, freedom of association, sexual freedom, and a foreign policy of free trade, non-interventionism, and opposition to the initiation of force (particularly military) to attain goals.

Total opposition to any and all forms of gun control at all levels of government.

Libertarians state that their platform follows from consistent application of the principle of mutual respect for rights, and the liberty of exercise thereof, and thus are deeply interested in of individual liberty as a pre-condition for moral and stable societies.

To this end, Libertarians want to reduce the size of government (eliminating many of its current functions entirely), and "support the repeal of all taxation."



http://www.libertarianpartyofhawaii.org/platform1.html

 

[Beefy]

Well thanks for that. But I'm actually registering as a Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in our primary. Then its back to "decline to state".

The Libertarian party is totally politically inept. I left them a couple of years back.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

They won SEVENTEEN PERCENT of the races in the last election!!!!!!!!!!! OMGZ!

Many new libertarian water board advisors!

 

[Epicurus]

One day the LP will rule every waterboard in America with an iron, freedom-loving fist!

Yes they are politically inept. I stick with them and work for them when I can but they are fucking morons who would rather howl anarchocapitalism at the moon than moderate their platform and get involved in the process.

 

[Cypress]

One day the LP will rule every waterboard in America with an iron, freedom-loving fist!

Yes they are politically inept. I stick with them and work for them when I can but they are fucking morons who would rather howl anarchocapitalism at the moon than moderate their platform and get involved in the process.

Thank you.

I would get mercilessly attacked for stating that. But, I think you're 100% correct.

 

[Epicurus]

Depending on how I feel at that time of day, I will either criticize or defend anarcho-capitalism. I do not believe that is entirely unworkable at the most extreme level, but I also don't think that the nation would be any better off in any quantifiable sense if we did apply anarcho-capitalist philosophy to every facet of law.

The American electoral process forces third parties into obscurity, a fact that I am happy to debate if you take issue with it, and forces them to become more radical simply to gain attention. There are entrenched, institutional reasons that third parties face an uphill struggle in American politics.

Having said that, the Libertarians have had plenty of opportunity to make their case and moderate their platforms. I am involved with the LRC, the central movement for moderate reform within the LP. In Portland last year at the LP convention the LRC succeeded in removing many untenable, unrealistic elements of the LP platform.

The anarcho-capitalists are the minority in the LP, whether you choose to believe so or not. But the mechanism for moderating the platform is more difficult than you might imagine. To officially change certain planks of the platform requires a 7/8ths majority of all delegates present. As you can see, a tiny coalition of anarcho-capitalist extremists can very easily kill a motion for reform. But every year we propose it, and every year we get closer.

Someday we will take the party in a more serious, less extreme direction and become a viable contender and a true third option for people sick of bigspending liberals and authoritarian theocrats.

 

[Epicurus]

Thank you.

I would get mercilessly attacked for stating that. But, I think you're 100% correct.

And you're right I do apply a double standard in this regard.

If you had said the statement of mine which you quoted, I probably would have taken issue with it and moved in to defend anarcho-capitalism.

It's unfair I know. But it's a double standard that we all apply. Your friend might bitch and moan about his girlfriend all day, but if you say a critical word about her he will be there to defend her.

 

[Cypress]

And you're right I do apply a double standard in this regard.

If you had said the statement of mine which you quoted, I probably would have taken issue with it and moved in to defend anarcho-capitalism.

It's unfair I know. But it's a double standard that we all apply. Your friend might bitch and moan about his girlfriend all day, but if you say a critical word about her he will be there to defend her.

I can understand that.

 

[Epicurus]

I can understand that.

Any comments about the LRC? I always work with some degree of suspicion that any party-line Democrat or Republican might actually have any desire to see more viable choices added to the political process.

I see it as a good thing. If it means that we have a Socialist president someday, I would still see it as a good thing.

More choices for voters is always a good thing.

 

[Epicurus]

I can understand that.

It's similar to the intra-party debates I see among forum Democrats and left-leaners about the Democratic Congress's continued funding of the war. Some Democrats might disagree among themselves with the leadership, but as soon as a Libertarian criticizes their inaction you're there to defend them.

It's basically a "No one but me and my siblings can talk shit about my parents!" attitude that we all seem share.

 

[Cypress]

It's similar to the intra-party debates I see among forum Democrats and left-leaners about the Democratic Congress's continued funding of the war. Some Democrats might disagree among themselves with the leadership, but as soon as a Libertarian criticizes their inaction you're there to defend them.

It's basically a "No one but me and my siblings can talk shit about my parents!" attitude that we all seem share.

Yeah, I guess that's true.

I don't think I've generally had a problem with anyone calling the Dems lame on stopping the war.

I kind of get tweaked, when anyone tries to equate them with being as bad as the republicans. The republicans got us into this war, and are fighting tooth an nail to keep us there. I don't see an equivalency in that sense.

 

[Epicurus]

Yeah, I guess that's true.

I don't think I've generally had a problem with anyone calling the Dems lame on stopping the war.

I kind of get tweaked, when anyone tries to equate them with being as bad as the republicans. The republicans got us into this war, and are fighting tooth an nail to keep us there. I don't see an equivalency in that sense.

If we take the road perspective and look at how we got here, you are exactly and completely right.

If we reduce it to its absolute most base logic: Republicans got us into this war by zealously and unquestioningly accepting piss-poor and in some cases downright fabricated intelligence, and continue to refuse to exercise their Constitutional power to end the war by ending the funding.

You would not disagree with any part of that sentence. You could change Republicans to "Republicans and Democrats" and the sentence would still be true. Republicans began this war. No one with half a brain is questioning that. Bushco led the charge and had apparently been scrambling for an excuse to invade since before 9/11. But the true institutions to blame are the Congress and the SCOTUS (both Republican and Democratic members of each), for failing in their responsibilities to check an overpowered executive and continuing to allow and fund an unconstitutional, undeclared war.

Republicans made the first move, but both parties are to blame for getting and keeping us there by voting to authorize force and continuing to appropriate funds for it.

 

[Cypress]

If we take the road perspective and look at how we got here, you are exactly and completely right.

If we reduce it to its absolute most base logic: Republicans got us into this war by zealously and unquestioningly accepting piss-poor and in some cases downright fabricated intelligence, and continue to refuse to exercise their Constitutional power to end the war by ending the funding.

You would not disagree with any part of that sentence. You could change Republicans to "Republicans and Democrats" and the sentence would still be true. Republicans began this war. No one with half a brain is questioning that. Bushco led the charge and had apparently been scrambling for an excuse to invade since before 9/11. But the true institutions to blame are the Congress and the SCOTUS (both Republican and Democratic members of each), for failing in their responsibilities to check an overpowered executive and continuing to allow and fund an unconstitutional, undeclared war.

Republicans made the first move, but both parties are to blame for getting and keeping us there by voting to authorize force and continuing to appropriate funds for it.

I have no problem with someone calling the dems cowards and lame on ending the war. As long as those "someones" aren't bush voters who actively enabled us to get into this war.

I've never been a huge cheerleader for completely cutting off funding. We have a president who is operating outside the law now. A president who had a modicum of respect for the constitution, would obey a congressional cut off of funds, and get out. Clinton in Somalia, for example. I think even Reagan or Ford, would have obeyed a congressional cut off of funds for a military action.

I think Bush will leave the troops there, even if funds are cut off. He has demonstrated that he doesn't respect the constitution, the congress, or the rule of law. He has demonstrated he will "interpret" US law in accordance with his own interests. Hello? Torture and waterboarding.

If funds are cut off, Bush will just scavenge money from other discretionary parts of the governments budget to fund the war. He might even use the "food and forage" to appropriate money through other channels, to fund the troops in the field. And he will, of course, blame any soldiers death in iraq due to "lack of equipment" because of the dems.

We have a lawless president warren. He's not bringing the troops home, simply because congress won't take up a spending bill. He will leave them there unless and until there is a legal, legislative mechanism to force him to withdraw

 

[Epicurus]

I honestly do not believe that Bush would tarnish his legacy even further by doing that. It's possible, but at some point "unwavering" becomes "stubborn" or "uncaring" even in the eyes of his core 30% base. We are both speculating about what his reaction would be and neither of us can say with any certainty. But I find it cowardly of both parties in Congress and the SCOTUS to allow Bush to walk all over them, undermining their Constitutional obligations to check the power of the President.

I would rather take the chance that our troops might come home than never try at all and allow the most powerful office in the world to become even more unchecked at the expense of our soldiers' lives.

What is the worst that could happen? We might run out of money to conduct patrols in certain areas of Iraq. We might be forced to reduce our troop presence. So the fuck what? Both of those are fine in my eyes. I could not for one second imagine that a sitting US president, even Bush, would never force troops to remain in Iraq without funds or supplies until they starved to death. Bush has shown that he is not going to end this on his own, and the Congress does not have the votes to force him to withdraw, but they have the power to stop sending American tax dollars to fight an undeclared, ill-advised war, which will serve the same function.

To do otherwise is, in my opinion, cowardice. Sacrificing principles for political expediency. You know what the voters were saying when they elected a Democratic majority in 2006, and it damn sure wasn't "Keep funding Bush's war until well into the next Presidency".

 

[Cypress]

Warren, I don't think appeals to bush to worry about his legacy, bears any weight.

The man doesn't care about his legacy. He doesn't care that he only has the support of the 24% dead enders.

I think if funding were immediately cut off, he would still leave the troops there by scavenging the discretionary portions of the government budget that the executive has some authority over. And if he doesn't have the authority to shift dollars around, he'll do it anyway. He'll invent some authority to shift dollars around. He doesn't care about the law, or legal precedent.

I don't disagree that the dems have been cowardly.

I don't agree that simply not submitting a spending authoritzation, brings the troops home. I think bringing them home actually takes a bill, to accomplish. Something with legal teeth in it. That's just my opinion