The 2020 US Libertarian Party Platform

@no1marauder said
It would sound a little more convincing if it wasn't coming from people too stupid to take simple, common sense measures to reduce the possibility of spreading a lethal disease.

@earl-of-trumps said
And meanwhile, your precious peaceful protesters have been huddled together now for 11 weeks.

now *that's* stoopid

@no1marauder

and NOT practicing social distancing. 11 weeks +

@earl-of-trumps said
If you want to understand the easy way what the Libertarian Party stands for, read this:

In Durham campaign stop, Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen advocates end to big government

[i]As a persistent rain fell, supporters of Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen gathered in Durham on Saturday night to applaud the three-time candidate’s laments ab ...[text shortened]... should be.


https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article244996385.html

@Philokalia
The idea of private property stemmed from the development of agriculture which had to have a large labor force which meant large groups together in one place.

@shavixmir said
Explain this limited government to me.
For example:

If people want to be free to spend time fishing, rather than checking which healthcare program is most beneficial and so vote for a government to take care of that time-consuming malarkey for them, is that alright?

Say you want to build yourself an underground swimming pool. You probably have to get government permi ...[text shortened]... nment”, but state specifically where you want less government. Then we can have a proper discussion.

@no1marauder
"Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

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."

This sounds great when an individual considers only his own case, but it does not scale well. Suppose a homesteader occupies and thereby comes to own a piece of property at a time when there is plenty left for others who come after to obtain "as much and as good" for themselves later (you will no doubt recognize the formulation from Locke's work). As a community grows, it becomes apparent that its further well-being depends on having a harbour (airport, railway, bridge, road, and various other facilities for the common good). Let us suppose that the first homesteader happens to be sitting on the best-suited piece of property for just that facility and refuses to sell it. The common good and the further accumulation of private property in the form of manufactured goods, is best served, including also the first homesteader's own ultimately, if some private property is made public property. Of course, not without due process of law and compensation: either in the form of a fair price for the property to be appropriated or an alternative piece of property elsewhere. I suppose the Libertarians oppose this. Had they had their way in the 19th c., there never would have been a national railway in America, because some homesteaders would have refused to part with their land, creating a barrier to further expansion. The industrialization of the nation would have stalled. There would not have been a prosperity boom, America would have remained a predominately small-farm agrarian society.

The fact of the matter is that there isn't as much and as good for everyone anymore; those days are long gone. This means that some resources must be managed for the collective good, no longer solely from the standpoint of the individual to do with as he pleases. Think, for example, of waste management, which knows no borders: pesticides, fertilizers, and effluent seep into rivers and groundwater and poison regions far beyond the local farm where such things are employed.
This kind of thing simply cannot be left to individuals to manage, each one for himself.

@moonbus

Very good post, moonman. [thumb-up]

I suppose the Libertarians oppose this [eminent domain]. Had they had their way in the 19th c., there never would have been a national railway in America, because some homesteaders would have refused to part with their land, creating a barrier to further expansion.

I as a Libertarian can say I *despise* land seizures by eminent domain. It's all Nazi Bullpuppies.

Perhaps the train system gets built in the 19th century, perhaps not. It will never
end all life in the US of A. "Freedom FIRST". Every individual is entitled to RIGHTS.

That's my say.

[Right] Libertarianism is where rich people are waited on by government men with guns but refuse to pay for the services. It is not a stable system.