National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, July 2002, Indianapolis, Indiana

III. Domestic Ills - Population

Recognizing that the American people are not a collective national resource, we oppose all coercive measures for population control.

We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization, or any other forms of birth control. Specifically, we condemn the vicious practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individuals.

We regard the tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies to be aggravated, if not created, by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation, and prohibition. Therefore, we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological technologies.

We equally oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing built into our present laws, including welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children. We urge the elimination of special tax burdens on single people and couples with few or no children.

i hope everyone realizes there's a difference between prostitution and education on sexuality

...like a fast ride towards an over and underclass
structured to accommodate the wealthy.

"we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality..."

Sound to me like child prostitution: A service that involves human sexuality, that children are not restricted from engaging in.

And they sure don't have a problem with kiddie porn.

Nor do they care if children view pronography.

Your "Liberty" sickens me.

Thak God you don't have a chance of ever running this country.

We have our libertarian friends who believe that wealth should protect it own ( and in cases where wealth is actually created, I agree with him) self
and allow the people to exist on their own, to pull themselves up without
‘government meddling’ on a minimum doll to keep down the
necessity for so damn many overpaid cops and judges, etc.
They got a point about government meddling.
My vision is a society or culture that allows all talent without filters of
privilege or power to create and contribute to the human ocean.

Let’s look into Sheepdog’s forbidden world.
Tax supported federal and state institutions.
Public school seriously financed, without cost, available to all the people
Universities, without cost, to anyone who can pass a double blind entrance exam.
Free medical service, seriously financed, to the entire people regardless
of citizen status.
Public works and training programs for all the shit that needs to be done
right here, right now.
Public Media/ 30% of available BW or content of carrier.
A military of citizen solders directed by public consent. for use of force
All water systems and air resources pushed towards zero tolerance in
respect to industrial. (then hang the bastards who plan cities
to require commuting) and electromagnetic pollution.

County and city government funding.
Public police who live in patrol areas paid by bond measures up
for periodic renewal.

We have new technology, friends, we don’t have to work or live this way.
I believe it is cultural, and artificial as well as unsustainable, a night-
mare for a growing populous. The collateral damage of this silent war.
All driven by a childish fairy tale of television fantasy
A construct of cultural myth and unrealistic avarice, we reach for the
brass ring of satisfaction in or toys while the treadmill takes our
lives away. It wouldn’t be so bad for our souls if it were only our own
lives being ground into gore by the machine.

>Tax supported
>seriously financed

And exactly WHO is going to pay for all these "free" services?

Taxes would be garnished from all businesses deriving profits from the people of the united states.

So a portion of the money we pay businesses would go towards paying for all these services.

So when corporations et. al. raise the cost of goods sold in order to maintain a certain profitabllity, thus costing the consumer more money for those good and services, the people will have less disposable income, which means they will buy less, which means people will have to be laid off, which means more people on the dole who aren't contributing into the system, which means less money per person going to these "free" institutions, which means poorer and fewer "free" services.

So, what do you do then?

this tax structure will not be run by monkeys ( I hope) and since we are looking at building not sucking the life out of the consumer there will be a growing spending base.
The problem with the current system, as I see it is the
diversion of funding in the form of conflicts of interests
at all levels. With an eliminated subsidy on hundreds of billions of dollars yearly the spending base could go up.
The public should have direct consent for approval on any
subsidy or new government program.

"Any Government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it away."
- Eric Hoffer

The fundamental problem with any type of Socialist system is that it requires force for it's maintenance. It may well be the "Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove" but it is there nevertheless. It requires that people cooperate (do what they are told) with the central authority. As well it destroys diversity by putting all decision making in the hands of a very few. "You will wear boots and you will like it." "The Central Planning Authority has decided we will not produce Sweaters this year." All of the above require force either real or implied.

There is no such thing as a "Free Lunch". Somewhere along the line someone has to pay. This requires that someone works and produces. One of the enduring myths of our time is that Businesses pay taxes. They do not. Businesses COLLECT Taxes. They do this by passing the burden on to the purchaser of their product. From a hardcore nuts and bolts perspective this is the reality - businesses that do not turn a profit are not in business very long. They go broke. When you raise taxes on a business they must pass that cost along to the purchaser of their product - YOU. Business is also you.

People in favor of huge Business Taxes are usually idealistic, and generally well meaning, people who have in mind large impersonal corporations when they talk about soaking businesses for the cost of Government and it's various shenanigans. However, the reality is that the burden falls heaviest on the little "Mom and Pop" operations that comprise most of the businesses in this country, or most others for that matter. The profit from the family business is their wage for doing what they do.

In a high tax environment the small business is the one that suffers the most. Large Businesses enjoy an "economy of scale" meaning that because of their much greater volume they can assign a smaller amount of expense to each product sold. To the small "Mom and Pop" operation their volume is much less and so they must raise prices ever higher to survive. At some point "X" when the tax and other hidden costs most people don't think about (the cost of bureacratic regulation being a big one - licenscing fees, "inventory taxes" - inventory sets on the shelf until it is sold - it is of no value until that potential is realized, Permit "Fees" etc...) reaches a critical threshold then small businesses can no longer survive in any number and what you have is nothing but Large Impersonal Corporations. Example: Take a look at small communities where Wal-Mart moving in has shut down most of the small businesses in the area. Wal-Mart's profit margin is no less than Mom and Pop's but because of the "economy of scale" they are able to sell for much less and thus out-compete smaller operations.

To the degree that the general tax burden begins to take an ever greater chunk of your earnings you are under Economic Duress. Duress? Try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes for the the men with guns and badges to show up. Try paying your bills when the tax burden is your largest expense. Currently the average working person pays more in taxes than they spend on food, shelter, and clothing combined. The average persons total tax load, the combination of Federal, State, and local taxes, is between 42 and 55 percent of their earnings. The variables are where you live and how much you make. By comparison a Feudal Serf paid no more than 1/3 or 33% of what they produced to the Lord of the Manner. How does it feel to be more of an economic slave than a Feudal Serf?

In a Free Economy you are confronted with the apparent complexity of a "self organizing system". By self organizing is meant that there is no central authority controlling production of goods and services. It is governed by the actions of free, presumably intelligent, beings who are acting upon their perception of what is needed and wanted. When they are right they satisfy their neighbors needs and receive a profit (wage) in return. When they are wrong they go broke. Witness the disappearance of "Slot Car Racing Centers". The Fad, and customers, went away and the businesses folded to be replaced with something that better fit people's current needs and wants.

On the surface a Free Economy appears chaotic, but that is appearance only. It has a complex inner structure of human relations, desires, and needs that are in a constant state of flux. Not everyone wants "meat and potatoes" every day. For those days you don't and enough other people agree to make it profitable somone will open up to serve that desire. It is the interaction of free people freely interacting.

We currently do not have a "Free Economy" we have a "Mixed Economy". Mixed Economy can be viewed as a code phrase for half Socialist. Actually it is more like a Plutocracy with Social Services to keep the Peasants from revolting and assaulting the Rockefellers et. al., in their Castles.

A Plutocracy is not a free economy. It is a Political System wherein the Ultra Wealthy have control either directly or indirectly. Government policy and actions are tilted to the advantage of the Plutocrats and consequently the disadvantage of other Citizens. It has been this way since some time around the mid 1880's if not before. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were well aware of the possible rise of such a system and both wrote of it's evils and in Madison's case fought against it effectively. (Take a look at the Second Bank of The United States.)

Now the issue of distorting the freedom to contract as supporting "Child Prostitution and Kiddie Porn". Preposterous! We have long had laws regulating what you could require children to do in the way of labor, and laws protecting children from exploitation. No one is talking about using children as "Sex Toys" (an offense I would not be averse to seeing punished by Drawing and Quartering but that's another issue). The problem my Libertarian Brethren are trying to correct are laws which restrict children in difficult circumstances from doing - namely helping to earn a living. Child Labor Laws evolved out of some truld disgusting practices that were common up until the second half of the 19th Century. (Time and space prohibit detail but if you are curious there are a multitude of books which recount the horrors some children experienced.) The problem is that the big government central planning authority solution to these problems has only limited utility. At some point the laws became so restrictive that they began operating to Children's disadvantage. Again time an space contraints prohibit detail beyond this thumbnail sketch, and yes I realize that their are many factors I haven't covered.

During the height of the Depression my own Father was forced to quit school in the 9th Grade to help earn enough money to put food on the family table. Under our current laws he would not have been able to do that. The way the law now reads is that we would rather have you starve or go on Public Assistance than do the honorable thing and work. This scenario was repeated many times over in other families.

Their is a balancing point between protecting children from exploitation and abuse and leaving enough freedom to do what is neccessary. I would argue that we have swung to the Pendulum Point to where the laws have now become a detriment as much, or more, than they protect.

Once upon a time, the State was the most powerful institution. It feels like corporations are more powerful than some countries. Looking at how the Middle East was carved up, more or less, to benefit oil companies, it would seem that the postwar era has been dominated by corporations.

Unfortunately, Diogenes, this might mean that all your libertarian focus on the State is actually something of a red herring to unify people to weaken the state in order that corporations might further consolidate power.

...for a detailed response to your valid quetion.

I would just say that Large Central, Powerful, Government invites corruption and is a device which has allowed Large Corporations to consolidate control in the Post WWII era.

The basic solution is a sound legal system, which we no longer have, with strict liability laws and guards agaist the accumulation of economic and political power in the same hands.

Hayek makes the case very effectively.

Again my apologies for the thumbnail response.

It's true because this all stems from the Libertarian Party's opposition of the age of consent laws...


Philosophy of Objectivism: Context, Context, Context
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris M. Sciabarra
sciabrrc@is2.nyu.edu
As to the law and pedophilia

. . . I agree in principle that age (age of consent) is not the only variable to consider, and that the necessity and quality of visibility will vary amongst individuals of different ages, needs, and characters. I also agree with Adam that laws based on a-contextual assumptions are problematic.

So, let's push the envelope a bit further. As an undergraduate, a few moons ago, I was the co-founder of a group called NYU Students for a Libertarian Society. After my undergraduate years, when my tenure ended as President of the organization, the group took controversy to another level entirely. It sponsored a talk by NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association... an event made infamous by Peter Schwartz's discussion of it in his "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty."

The purpose of sponsoring the talk was to bring awareness to the hypocrisy of age of consent laws, a strictly libertarian theme, not to celebrate sex with 6 year olds. Still, the talk made lots of people uncomfortable -- with good reason. It is reasonable to suggest that the rule of law requires some kind of boundary-drawing -- at what point is sex between an adult and a minor informed consent? At what point is it subtle coercion? Can there be objective boundaries? Or is everything arbitrary?

Whether or not one agrees with NAMBLA - - and so that I am not misrepresented yet again, let me say that I am not now nor have I ever been a member of this organization, and I DO prefer and enjoy romantic and sexual ties with those in my own age bracket - - I do think that the issue of age of consent laws is extremely important for both libertarians and Objectivists to consider. Any takers on this?

Maybe what a libitarian wants is not an age of consent but just a clear sign of consent. i.e an action where they show that they agree to sex and understand its implications.
They might combine that with a not particularly well enforced law with brutal consequences to compensate for difficulty of enforcement.

corporations are more powerful than governments
- If the countries really want they can take all of the assets of the companies and the companies can dop nothing.. this has happened many times before - then the companies only power is to try to sue the USA power or Britains. If they decide not to it is because it is in their interests.

-- Any Government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it away."

The future is the way of authoritarian capitalism.
In singapore, china etc etc it has thrashed other forms of government for the last few decades and promises to continue to do so.
If you want to do somthing about that your time is running out fast and messing around with the USA wont do any good at all.