Former HQ of the Libertarian Party

[Besuchov]

First of all I think I would call myself more liberal leaning towards libertarianism than true libertarian(this said from a swedish perspective where the big divide is between liberals and socialists rather than between liberals and convervatives) though it appears that this party might be rather responsible in its quest for liberty.

As a prospective party member I can only agree what Mr. Apebe said, it is slightly unlcear what official party policy is and what is just the personal opinion of members.

To try to get a clearer picture of what your party believes I would like to adress a couple of issues and see what kind of comments they will give rise to.

I fully agree with the stand on prostitution and gambling(if I interpreted it correctly).
I see absolutely no reason to ban gambling though I would not mind a tax on gambling that goes to financing care for people that become adicted.
As for prostitution I see no reason to outlaw for people to do something for money that they would be perfectly allowed to do for free. I would not be against a law that bans other people than the actual prostitute from making any money from the transaction though, this since prostitues tend to be at the bottom of society and therefor easely becomes victims of pimps and similar charachters.

I totally and unconditionally oppose the death penalty. It appears that this party so far agrees with this, it does worry me however that a number of members waver, will the opposition to the death penalty stand?

I support the idea that it is not the for the state to interfere in peoples choice of partner, therefore hetero- and homosexual marriages should have equal status. Since I also believe in the separation of chruch and state I believe that the state cannot force a religion to accept the same principle From a legal standpoint, however, all marriages should be treated equal nomather who preformed the ceremony.

I'm very sceptical to legalization of any drug not currently legal. At the very least I would whish for a declaration that very careful studies need to be carried out before any relaxation of laws is proposed.

I notice that hospitals is on the 'public sphere list'. My own position on this that while healthcare should be financed by the state there is nothing wrong with privately run hospitals. Same goes for education.

I beleive that EUtopia should have an active foregin policy where 1% of our GDP goes to foregin aid and where we are able to participate in UN suported peacekeeping, peacemaking and conflict preventing missions.

We should have strong defence force, both capable of dettering attack on our country, aid in civilian crisises(such as floods and earth quakes) as well as protect EUtopian intrests abroad and participate in UN missions. I belive this is helped by joining NATO.

About the abortion issue. Do I understand it correctly if I say that this party has no stand on this at all? Would this party fight a law that bans all abortions unless under extreme circumstances? I definately would.

I support entry into the EU. We have much in common with the rest of Europe and our entry into the union would strengthen our possibilities to influence the rest of the world, improve our possibilites to to trade and help to build a stable and peaceful future both for EUtopia and Europe as a whole.

I support the idea of a minimum standard of living, this would in effect mean some sort of welfare that you cannot loose. I also believe that there should be a minimum wage that coincides with the minimum standard of living(this would in effect only apply to foreginers who work temporarily in EUtopia since noone would take a job i welfare pays more.)

Adoption: I believe that gay couples should have the same right to be tried as parents as straight ones.

Don't know if I missed anything now...

 

[Besuchov]

I think that I would like to become involved in this party so I will take the liberty of posting a version of the poll.

Domestic Policy
Economical Topic
Free Market : Y
State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...) : N
State Intervention with negative budget policy : N
Minimum wage : y
Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune) : N

Social and philosophical Topic
Death penalty abolition : Y
Abortion : y ( conscious clause)
Homosexual Marriage : y
Gambling legalization : Y
Prostitution Legalisation : Y
State morale based on Christian value : N
drugs legalization: N (or at lest that it is carefully investigated before action is taken)

Defence Topic
Conscription : N (though I see democratic reasons for having conscription I'll stick with N for now)
Increase of Defence budget : (bit difficult to say since I have'nt really analyzed the current one, we should have a strong armed force though)


International Policy
Kyoto Ratification ( free trade ): Y
WTO (in French OMC) Ratification : Y
NATO Ratification : Y
EU future member : y

 

[Besuchov]

Though I note that Mr. Jools accept that not all his views will make official policy for the party I'll still answer some of them since an active debate is the core of any democratic party.

Originally posted by Jools
Death penalty- the state should reserve it's right to judge it's citizens this way. Law and order can be kept this way though executing convicted criminals doesn't have to be on a day to day basis. Mass murders, serial killers, exceptional brutality.

From an ethical standpoint I say that it is my belief that the state never had the right to take the life of its citizens. It has the right to defend its citizens from harm, a prisoner does not have the capacity to harm anyone.

From the standpoint of law and order I say that so far it has not been shown that states that kills its prisoners have fewer crimes.
A would also suggest that a criminal that knows he face the death sentence run the risk of being more of a danger to society since he has absolutely no reason to surrender peacfully to the police and would instead form an even greater danger to society when fighting to the death.

From a libertarian standpoint I would not like to live in a state that has the right to decide who will live and who will die, that much power belongs to no organization.

Gay 'marriage' - if you look in the dictionary marriage is a traditional relationships for heterosexual couples. It is the natural way to form a family and bring up children. It is been THE way since the dawn of mankind. Psychologists agree that gay marriages brinking up 'their' children will have a decisive - negative- impact on the upbringing. Of course this isn't the rule of thumb but as a capitalist I heavily rely on nature to show me the correct path to take and I don't really care who sleeps with who but homosexuals can't reproduce and that alone is a danger to the nation.

In this quote you have adressed to issues, gay marriages and gay adoptions. In my opinion separate issues(though it would be unwise to have the second without the first) so I will adress them separatly.

The definition of marriage you put forward is the one set by the major religions. Who are we to tell them what they should put in their religion? True, but we are making the rules in a secular state and not in a church. As far as the laws of a secular state is concerned a marriage(or what ever one might want to call it) is a union between two people that have choosen to share their life, a union that carries with it certain legal priviliges. As a liberal I cannot accept that the state should tell its citizens exactly who they must choose since it has basically no impact on the working of the state. Some might argue that the marriage should produce children. The fact of the matter is though that firstly gay people will still not produce any children even if we do not allow them to 'marry' and secondly should we forbid people who cannot/do not want to have children to enter into marriage? If it is a question of the definition of the word marriage, that in truth could be said to have been invented by the church, I would not be against separating the 'marriage' of the secualar state from that of the church by doing as some other countries has done that is to name it 'partnership' or something like that.

Then on to gay adoption. First of all I would like to challange the idea that the idea of two people raising a child has been around since "the dawn of mankind". If I look back at the history of my ancestral land Sweden, in the old day child raising was the collective duty of the extended family. Small children was almost exclusively raised by the women of the extented familly(apart from the mother, grandparents, aunts, cousins and the like) and when the boys got older they were separated to enter into the world of men. The idea that the two person 'core' familly should take on the sole responsibility of childraising is roughly 100 years old and is in the process of being erroded in most western societies where child rasing is more and more becoming the responsibility of various institutions such as daycare centers.

Now, I'm not saying that there is something wrong with the 'core' familly I'm just challanging the idea that it has allways been the naturall and only sound way, I'm also challanging the right of the state to decide what is 'natural'. It is true that many adoption agencies oppose gay adoptions. From what I gather they have two major objections(except for the religous ones that also would like to add the 'its unnatural' aspect), first they claim that it would be difficult to get countries that for moral reason oppose gay adoptions to give their children up and secondly they claim that since a lot of adopted children grow up with psychological problems(bad memories, a sence of rootlessnes or perhaps racism) the added problem that comes with the stigma that homosexuality carries with it in our present society would be an extra burden to an allready troubled child. The first one is relatively easy to answer, there is nothing that prevents us from only trying homosexal parents in cases where the giving country does not forbid it, there is many more children that needs adoption than we can ever find parents for. The second has some bearing. However this is not the only thing that children can get picked on in school for. Should we forbid adoption of children that are genetically prone to becoming fat? Racism exist, should we forbid people of different skin color to adopt? and so on. The views of the society is also something that is in constant change. In the US a 150 years ago black people where slaves, 50 years ago black people could not sit in the same bars as white people in parts of the country, today the secretary of state is black. Even today the animosity towards gays in EUtopia has decreased so much that it does not make is a greater danger to be the adopted child of a gay couple than it is for example to be a fat child or to be an immigrant child in an all white school.

And finally, the only really important part in the gay adoption part of this post. Adoption is primarilly not for the sake of the parents but for the sake of the children, this kind of debate (or at least the people favouring gay adoption) tend to focus overly on the rights of the parents. The fact of the matter is that in the world as a whole there are far more children awaiting possible adoption than there are willing(and suitable) parents. I find it very hard to believe that an underfunded, overcrowded orphinage in Moldavia or Bangladesh can really provide a better future for a child than a loving couple in wealthy EUtopia, notmather if these parents are of the same of different sex.

Abortion - Just because people are irresponsible doesn't mean they have the right to destroy potential life. Sure, endagering of life, rape, detected sickness in foetus OK. But somehow I don't beleive that a woman should have the right to just snap her fingers and go to the clinic everytime she forgets about anti conception. For gods sake, they're adults, the know what their doing.

If having an early abortion is destroying a 'potential life' then so is male masturbation or for a women not trying to get pregnant between every menstruation cycle. We might pass moral judgment of irresponsible that are sloppy wiht contraception(which using in the first place also destroys 'potential life') but that does not give the government the right to decide that a person should be forced to create and bear a new life. At one point a featus becomes a life, towards the end of the pregnancy we can be rather sure that it is while it sounds rather silly to call an egg cell and a sperm cell a human being. To excactly decide where in between this line is drawn os something that is to much for the state to decide for the state and should be left to the individual and their conscience/God. At one point however an individual is created and then it becomes the responsibility of the state to protect this individual, therefore we must set a limit where the featus cease to be 'potential life' and becomes an individual.

Nato and EU - Nato, this structure has no goal for know. It is a left over from the cold war. I beleive Eutopia should just ally with the states ignoring NATO. EU - What for? High taxes, big social spendings, giving away sovereignity, EURO, and not even in Europe- I'd rather join NAFTA or CEFTA.

On Nato. Nato may not at present have a big clearly defined enemy. That does not in my opinion render NATO obsolete. All nations feel that they need armed forces for their protection. The way I see it NATO still has a function.

First it provides a collective security that enebles the individual nations to feel secure while at the same time being able to spend slightly less on defence since they can rely on their neighbours.

Secondly, the integration of the armed forces of various smaller countries provide a transparancy and cooperation that fosters trust between the memberstates when they know what the neighbours army is doing are working togeather with it.

Thirdly, just because no threat exists now does not mean there wont be any in the future. NATO is a good framwork for meeting emerging threats, now and in the future.

Fourthly, for all the differences NATO represent the long term bond and mutual comitment to create a secure future between the USA and Europe. This alone should be enough reason to be a part of NATO.

 

[Besuchov]

Just because we have not(and most likely will not) reach a coherent view on some issues does not mean we should not debate that, debating is a part of the democratic process. If we would end up in a position where we would be a part of the government we would also have to at least take some sort of stand, until then we do not have to though.

I have no problem with sending drug users to rehab centers instead of prison, in fact that is what I believe should be done. The fact that drugs are illegal enables the state to force adicts into a care program, if not we would not have a legal way of doing so.

On marijuana, it might be so that they should be legalized. I just ask that we promote a carefull approach where the effects and dangers be carefully evalutated before any concrete law is passed(or abolished) and not just legalize it out of principle.

I also believe that we can hardly call ourselves libertarians if we approve of the death penalty. We don't believe the state has the right to tax people to hard but we do beleive that the state has the right to kill them...

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by Jools
I AM a libertarian but mostly in the economical sphere but socially I am VERY conservative that's why I would probably fit better in a liberal conservative party more but no such has formed and I don't wish to create one.

As for Abortion
--------------------

I know that treating the combined egg and sperm cell as life is a little overboard but what I'm worried about in legalising all forms of abortion is the moral matter. What will happen with responsibilty if our citizens will be brought up in an atmosphere of NO RESPONSIBILTY since every decision they take (like having sex without anticonception) they will make themselves the victims because "They're too young" and "not ready for having kids, and they just want to have fun". This wreaks to me of moral decadence.

It seems that that you and I agree on the basic principle that just because you combine a sperm and an egg it automatically becomes an idividual. Then, after reading your post, I can't help but wonder: is really teching good old morals to the younger generation really the right reason to bring a child into this world?
If we believe what young people have to much sex(I know I don't ) I really think that we should find a better way at communicating this than to make them pregnant.

Gay 'marriage'
------------------

Since Besuchov agreed that calling these partnerships as marriage is not appropriate I will not call it such.

What I reckon for gays is that they want to have the security and legal tie with their partners, to secure their future in a sort of way. Gay couples don't seek some religious ceremony but more of a legal one. What they want

-Common taxation
-Inheritance rights
-To be treated as a close family member legaly (like asking for information in hospitals etc...)

This is acceptable and logical, no?

Gay couples may very well seek a religous seremony, we are however not a religous party deciding the future in a church, we are a political party aspiering to decide the future of the secular state of EUtopia. I see no reason why the state should differentiate between homo- and hetero-sexuals as far as this is concerned. What I suggest is that we separate the term 'marriage' and the term 'partnership' and let the church be concerned with marriage. Technically this means replacing the term marriage in the law with the new partnership that basically is the same thing but also is open to gays(when you marry in church you would, as far as the state is concerned, automatically enter into a partnership and you will not know the difference).

Death Penalty
------------------

The death penalty is one of the guarantees of the power of the legislative branch. DP should be used in murder cases. How should I explain this... It is a power that can control certain elements in society that decide not to part of it (to be a criminal). Criminals are dangerous to soceity and state. You are making me feel as though the State is a danger to criminals.

The legislative branch, aka the state, needs to be able to assert its power so that it can fulfil its primary mission, to protect the people. That is why we, the people, have bestowed upon it a monopoly on violence. However, no construct nor any individual is without error. Therefor we also need to impose on the state the principle that it must only use the minimum amount of force to protect the people, the prisoner in his cell does not precent a threat to anyone. If we do not uphold this principle it is not the criminals to whom the state may become a threat, it is to all of us.

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by Jools
JETSON!!!

Could you please distince between a capital (NO) and non capital (no). A NO is a strong emphasis a small case vote is a view that you can change/adjust whatever.

Someone should tell me these things I shall review what is capital/non-capital for me.

Edit: After reviewing my 'choices' I would like like to decrease the size of my nay's on nato and conscription. I believe NATO to be a good thing but it is not critical that we currently join and I see redeeming qualities about conscription.

I would also like to upgrade my yea on 'homosexual marriage' but I do not object to calling it 'partnership'.

edit2: About the defence budget. Do we even know what the defence budget currently is?

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by Apebe
I just read the first post of the thread and there I see the Party line is for Death sentence and against Kyoto ratification. I thought I was in Eutopia not in Texas. I can understand different opinions, but I can't be active in a parti whose official politcal engagement is against my orientation and beliefs. If these topics aren't changed minimum to "individual conscience slause" or so ... I will have to resign my engagement.

I second this.

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by Jools
Guys I don't agree with many of you but I don't feel like leaving or fragmenting. Party policy can change. Right now this death penalty/Kyoto/Gay marriage thing is irrelevant as I think our main goal is CAPITALISM, FREE MARKET, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE and NON INTERVENTIONISM. let's concentrate on those.

The problem here is that not all of us see capitalism as the primary goal. At least I see the freedom of the individual as the primary goal. To achieve this goal we need capitalism and free enterprise but imo freedom for the individual also includes that the state should not be able to kill an idividual it has at its mercy, the individual should be able to choose what she will do with her own body and the idividual should be able to choose who to spend his/her life with. If we have conscience clauses on most important issues we are'nt really a party but rather a collection of individual mp:s.

 

[Besuchov]

And I shall join Mr. Apebe in his quest to create a better EUtopia for all. I was unsure if this was the right party for me from the beginning and I now feel that it was not.

Best wishes
/Besuchov