Howard Phillips - Constitution Party

R

RedCrosse

New member
It is evident that the Libertarian Party is a favored 3rd party of the Firing Line. I was wondering what criticism is offered of Phillips' platform and a quick comparison of Phillips platform and the libertarian party.
If I may make one humble request: I am interested in criticisms of Phillips' platform specifically and not in the can o' worms argument regarding the chances of a 3rd party victory.

BTW, the Constitution Party website is now www.constitutionparty.com

For my position, it appears that the libertarian party holds liberty in high esteem, and offers an appealing platform in regards to state rights, small fed gov't and freedom of conscience. My question is _why_? Why freedom of religion? Why freedom at all? We all agree that freedom is better than bondage, but what standard is appealed to in enforcement of this statement? I think that it is clear from the Const. Party website that the Christian Scriptures are what dictates liberties and the role of government, but what about the libertarian party? Where do they appeal as their standard? The argument still appears to stand even if one does not hold to the Bible as divine revelation. At least Phillips points to something, much the way that many of the framers pointed (at least to the standards of morality, government, liberty, freedom of conscience, etc.) of the Scriptures.

I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding a comparison of the libertarian party and the Constitution Party.
 
"...comparison of the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party."
Not many differences, but there is one that is crucial: the Libertarians, for whatever reason, have within their ranks adolescent rebels who imagine that toilet training is oppressive. All too many Libertarians are hop-heads who only espouse the Party because of its indifference to personal drug use, abortion, or other perversions.

It's a damned shame, but until the Libertarians can come up with a theoretical reason to ditch these albatrosses around their neck they'll never amount to anything.

The Constitution Party, on the other hand, comes across as a group of over-read gruff old geezers who do not suffer fools gladly, and will look a socialist/liberal/demon/totalitarian straight in the eye and refute him or her without guilt or intimidation. They're not in a popularity contest. They have no use for hop-heads, abortion, or depraved people squealing about persecution. They are no fun at parties. If the Republicans go "pro-choice" they'll get my vote.

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 01, 2000).]
 
With respect, the constitution party seems a little to close to a limited Iranian style islamic republic. I like a lot fo what I see... however, I'm an athiest. I realize that they don't call for a national religion, but they define everything from a biblical point of view (as an example, see family section... could a mormon polygamist follow His/Her religion? Won't go into the gay/lesbian thing here).
Now, many of the things they call for wouldn't affect me (probably). Despite Munro's rant, I don't do drugs, I'm happily married (heterosexual), lead a pretty quiet life, think potty training is a good thing. As a libertarian, my guiding principle is sorta treating adults as adults. As long as your actions aren't hurting me (and I'm not going into this in detail here and now), you are free to do them. Are they bad for you, maybe. Do I wish you wouldn't do them, maybe. But you are an adult now. I won't live your life for you, nor will I accept responsiblity for your mistakes. I may help you with your problems, I may not.. depends.

Anywho, this is getting long and probably boring to you (I'm convinced it's brilliant writing :D )I'm sure someone will write a better version of this. I won't be able to respond for a couple of days, but will address comments/flames ;) later.
Take care

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
 
"But you're an adult now."

Chronological age and emotional age are two different things. A great example of this is our current President. We've got a generation of 50 year old brats who never grew up, whining about their "right" to infantile, irresponsible behavior.

The best explanation of constitutional principles I've ever read, describing the relationship of the Constitution to the Declaration and the philosophical premises behind the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.keyes2000.org/issues_and_speeches/transcripts/970221lecture.shtml

I don't think a Libertarian could analyze a fundamental issue with such clarity.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 01, 2000).]
 
In actuality there'd be very little difference in policy between the Libertarian or Constitution party if elected to the Presidency. Why?

Because they both take the Constitution seriously. Still people will get very upset one way or another. The Constitution party isn't going to invent a bunch of new Constitutional powers making it able to enforce all sorts of strict religious mandates. At the same time the Libertarian party isn't going to be able to use the federal level to decree laissez-faire on the states.

The only substantive difference I've found is on the abortion issue. Phillips has argued in the past that he thinks the 14th amendment makes abortion suspect. But I know there is disagreement in the party on this issue. As far as I know, the libertarian party also doesn't believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. I'd have to check the platform on this, but I was under the impression that they too believe it to be a state issue along with essentially all areas of criminal law.

From personal experience I know that many members of the Constitution and Libertarian parties differ on a lot of issues, but they do agree that most of these issues should be decided at the state level and the federal government should be restricted to its enumerated powers.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
All too many Libertarians are hop-heads who only espouse the Party because of its indifference to personal drug use, abortion, or other perversions.[/quote]

Thanks for the smile, Munro. I haven't heard the term "hop-heads" since my local station stopped airing "Dragnet."

You and I actually agree on the drug issue, but I am starting to agree with the Libertarians on TFL about this. Let 'em use drugs. Thins out the gene pool.

------------------
*quack*
 
A couple gentle suggestions:

Red Crosse says, “It is evident that the Libertarian Party is a favored 3rd
party of the Firing Line.”
Not quite so. To the best of my knowledge, The Firing Line espouses no
particular political party, no particular religious faith or opposition thereto, no
particular diet or specific product offered for sale or use, etc.
A perusal of forum policies may be enlightening, ref
Forum policies
Misleading insults notwithstanding, the Libertarian Party is favored many
people who:
- Want a two-party system rather than the current one-party system.
- Believe the current system will destroy our Republic.
- Realize the Republicans will do slowly, with greater success, what the
Democrats want to do quickly.
- (and much, much more).
-----
Mr. Munro Williams says, “I don't think a Libertarian could analyze a
fundamental issue with such clarity.”
1) Personally, I would love to see the Republicans split with the Democrats
and select Dr. Keyes as their leader. However, the current one-party in
power has too much in common to choose a thinking American as their
leader.
2) Until you have met, understood, and otherwise have become adequately
qualified to evaluate all Libertarians, your comment has the hollow ring of an
unfounded and insulting generalization. Perhaps you meant, “No Libertarian
I’ve met could analyze a fundamental issue with such clarity”?
-----

All,

I notice Libertarians quote Bush as supporting gun control. That's easy. His website explains his intent to gradually revoke our Second Amendment RKBA.

I notice Republican answers are typically "themes" such as:
1) "He's not as bad as Gore."
2) "Do you want Gore to select the new Supreme Court Judges?"
3) "A vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for Gore."

My personal answers are:
1) Bush might be worse than Gore. The gradual decline into tyranny by the Republicans won't awaken Americans to the danger as would the Democrats' rapid programs.
2) And the difference is?
3) And that is a simplistic attitude which will continue our ride down "the slippery slope".

Be careful when you bad-mouth Libertarians. The facts are against you.

------------------

Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
My complaint with the Libertarian Party is that they allow all sorts of mental illness in the name of personal liberty. Liberty requires the ability to govern one's self. Dopers cannot do that.

In addition, the Libertarians can't offer me something called quality of life, i.e., the reason you go home instead of to the bar after work.

Finally, after it's all said and done, what can the Libertarians offer me that I can't get in Cambodia? I live in Japan, and a lot of folks who call themselves Libertarians go to Phnom Penh because "no one hassles you." They've got all the dope you could smoke, shoot, drop, or snort, all the sex, of any age and variety, you can buy, and all the AK-47s you can shoot, plus hand grenade and machine-gun ranges, and RPGs at $35.00 a shot.
But the country's a toilet. I have heard nothing from the Libertarian Party which can describe why that state of existence is morally evil.

Liberty is self government, which requires rational morality. In short, it requires moral discrimination. The Libertarians I know consider this to be oppression.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
I really don't care what others put in their body - unless it's family, friends, or represents a danger to others.

I drink beer - usually at home. When I'm somewhere else and drink beer, my wife drives. We've broken no laws. We've not endangered anyone. Therefore it's nobody's business but ours.

Drink excessively, drive, endanger others - go to jail.

Drink excessively at home - not my business, or yours, or the government's (unless the drinker hurts someone else). It may be a "family matter"! ;)

Drink excessively in public and create a nuisance or danger to others - go to jail.

The problem is not the alcohol but the misuse of alcohol.
The problem is not the gun but the misuse of the gun.
The problem is not the dope but the dope who misuses the dope (or the alcohol, or the gun). ;)

Some currently illegal drugs apparently have medical value: morphine and marijuana come to mind. Other drugs apparently don't.

Those who MUST drink alcohol to have fun have a problem. The same would be true of any mind-altering drug - be it legal (eg alcohol) or illegal.

Simple, straightforward, workable, and moral.
-----

The only mind-altering drugs I use are beer, on rare occasion wine or liquor, and Nyquil. Other folks make other choices.

Am I hurting myself by drinking beer? Yes. Though a little helps the cardiovascular system, it also gives me "empty" calories - and my weight is out of proper boundaries. Should the government require me to drink a pre-determined amount of beer daily - no more no less? I think not.

My occasional beer is my business, perhaps my family's business, but no business of my neighbors or government unless, perhaps, I ask for help.

Are beer drinkers less "mentally ill" than those who smoke a joint at home, in private?
That requires a choice I do not want my government to make. If that means I "allow all sorts of mental illness in the name of personal liberty" then I am guilty.

I agree, "Liberty requires the ability to govern one's self." But a "doper" in control governs himself better than a habitual drunk, computer junky, TV addict, or the morbidly obese. So I believe "Dopers cannot do that" [self-govern] should refer to self-abusers - regardless of their addiction (or what they product abuse).
-----

"Libertarians can't offer me something called quality of life..."

And your point is????

The government should offer you a certain level of safety and a certain level of Liberty. The two are a trade-off. More safety equals less liberty. But even in prisons the government can not provide safety.

I prefer more liberty and a little less safety.

As for quality of life, that is something we provide ourselves. It's neither the government's job nor in its ability to provide all citizens "quality of life".

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
Quality of life is what folks do not have in places like Phnom Penh and Amsterdam, but, according to Libertarian philosophy, they have all the liberty anyone could want.

I ask again: what can the Libertarians offer me that I can't get in Cambodia?
 
Just a quick not in regards to Dr. Keyes. The Constitution Party has actively sought the support of Keyes (see www.constitutionparty.com )and it is my understanding that Keyes is somewhat interested. It is also my understanding that if the Republicans change their platform to pro-choice (Bush's running mate?) that Keyes will join the Const. Party. This gives them a little bit more credibility in the national race, wouldn't you say?

Apologies for associating TFL with any political party. I saw my error as soon as you mentioned it, Dennis.
 
RedCrosse,
Thanks. Your impression may come from the volume (both amount and loudness) required of Libertarians just to be heard. :)
-------

Munro,
“I ask again: what can the Libertarians offer me that I can't get in Cambodia?”

I initially ignored your question as a courtesy to you - apparently it was
unappreciated. So let’s address it.

Repeating an absurd question does not give it legitimacy.
- Your personal definition of “Quality of Life” (what it means, what it MUST
involve, what it must NOT involve) remains a mystery. Please explain in detail
so I may better address your question.
- What Cambodia has or lacks, in your opinion, has little relevance to the
comparison of American political parties.
- As a quick and glib answer to your question, I tentatively would propose "a
successful and prosperous republic, free enterprise, personal liberty, and
freedom from oppressive government". But I must admit I am guessing at the
intent of your question (other than to defame and discredit an American
political party).

However, as a courtesy to you, I will entertain your question more thoroughly
when and if you provide me a model of what the Republicans or Democrats
provide that you can’t get in Cambodia. I can understand your need to
compare parties, at least the Republicans and Democrats, with Cambodia - after all, they have some points in common:

- The Republicans and Democrats have established an elitist ruling class which
controls our federal government. By definition “The United States” is now an oligarchy with mere remnants of our former republic intact.

- The Republicans and Democrats, working together, have created a nation
with sheeple being the vast, vast majority. Our nation is mostly:

-- Sheeple bleating for “less worse” rather than demanding a return to, and
implementation of, Constitutional Law.

-- Sheeple unwilling and/or unable to believe we can do anything other than go
along with what our government requires of us.

-- Sheeple who scandalize as “radical” anyone who believes in personal
responsibility rather than obeisance to the federal government.

-- Sheeple who fear the ability to make personal decisions about their lives
and the responsibility for those decisions.

-- Sheeple willing, even eager, to endure obscenities such as the Clintons,
Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Elian incident, and countless other violent and
semi-violent tragedies against American citizens.

-- Sheeple unqualified to be in the same gene pool with our Founding Fathers.
We, as a nation, have betrayed their beliefs, their intent, their promise and
their gift of freedom and liberty in return for government controls upon us.

ALL these things apparently equate well to a nation of dictators, purges,
pogroms and mass murder as happened in Cambodia. None of these things
compare with any portion of Libertarian intent. I could continue but frankly,
either you’ve got the picture or you never will.
-------

All,

I am proud to be associated with most TFLers; but I have become ashamed,
truly ashamed, of the hollow Americanism espoused by the vast majority of
our countrymen. They remain willfully ignorant. They wantonly follow our
current political Judas Goats into the open maw of tyranny. I despise them for
lowering our country and its populace to the internationalist levels required by
the globalists whose dreams consist of robotizing the world.

How many people of today would dare honestly promise, as Jefferson
promised, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man”?

Certainly the vast majority of Americans can not even understand Jefferson’s
intent. As a nation, we have become a nation of piddling proponents of perverted political propriety.

I refuse to permit ANY government to demand compliance with edicts which
are tyrannical, are counter productive to my family’s best interest, or reduce
me to the status of subject. I am an American. I am a citizen. I am a
believer in Liberty and personal freedom and I will take responsibility for my
own actions.

My personal and political views could be summed up best by simply saying,
“Don’t tread on me.”

Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't. I do.
Either you believe in the Bill of Rights, or you don't. I do.
Either you believe in the U. S. Constitution, or you don't. I do.

RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 06, 2000).]
 
I'm new here but my .02 cents in regards to the "what can the libertarians offer me that I can't get in Cambodia" is....NOTHING AND EVERYTHING!! A Libertarian government will pretty much leave you alone...the Cambodian government, as history has shown, will not. So it's NOTHING (no interference at the federal level) and EVERYTHING (your freedom to keep what you earn and pursue your own "happiness" so long as you don't infringe upon the rest of us). Just doesn't get better than that.

As for the abortion thing...a libertarian government would simply say that is not a federal matter and leave it up to the states, who could handle it however their resident citizens choose.

Besides, expecting the federal government to "offer" us anything except a commitment to secure our rights and stay out of our hair is what got us in the mess we're in now! This country was founded on the principle of personal liberty and limited government. If we don't get back to that, it's gonna kill us.

The only Republican worth a damn that I've heard lately is Mr. Keyes.





[This message has been edited by Franklin W. Dixon (edited June 06, 2000).]
 
All,
Just noticed this:

“Since it is political liberty, over and above gun ownership, that we are fighting
for, I disdain pleas to "compromise." The remarkable people who gave us this
country were quite ready to sacrifice their lives for the principle of political
liberty. God grant that we may be worthy of them!” -- Col. Jeff Cooper
http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/JeffCooper/
-------

Franklin,

(sigh) You said so well what I only tried to say. Thanks. :)



------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
Dennis,
For the reasons you mentioned I really love this forum. Everyone here thinks about fundamental issues. It is a pleasure to participate. It really makes my day.

I live in Japan. Like the rest of Asia, you can do pretty much what you want so long as you don't have a strong opinion about anything, and agree enthusiastically with whatever is the prevailing opinion at the moment. In this wise, the Japanese sheeple and the American sheeple are pretty similar: going along to get along, avoiding the pain of ostracism or worse, well, that's about as good as it gets.

This is the common motivation throughout Asia: avoiding pain, and this is where "quality of life" comes into play. Seeking reward, moral plesure, if you will, is a fundamentally different motivation. It necessarily means spending the time and effort necessary to personally improve one's life, improving the quality of one's life.
When one avoids pain, you try to keep things from getting worse. You can't have the cajones to make things better. There's too much at stake, you may well lose it all.
When you seek quality of life, the thought of possible loss is insignificant to the possibility of future gain.
Quality of life requires much, much more than the withdrawal of threats.

Over here in Asia the only countries which the casual observer would recognize as tyrannies are Burma and North Korea. China is promoting economic progress, trying to implement the Japanese economc model, and Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia are all racing to get on the bandwagon.
Fundamentally, however, these systems remain tyrannies. Having a strongly held personal opinion, being stubborn, is the cardinal sin.
In fact, to thrive, one needs to accomodate killers and psychopaths, particularly in the case of Cambodia. No one over there wants to bring the Khmer Rouge to trial, it's too disturbing. Justice is troublesome, it'll make people upset. Cambodia is doing much better these days, why fix something that isn't broken?

"Let's all get along and not hassle one another" means, in Asia, ignoring mass murder and institutionalized insanity.

The USA is catching up.

Right now, a child with either heel still in the birth canal can get its brains sucked out and be dismembered. This is considered a woman's right to choose.

There was a sick joke about dead babies and bowling balls about 20 years ago. That sick joke is now the social reality.

The Libertarian Party is silent about this, referring to it as a state's rights issue. There is no crisis of conscience here. There is no theoretical rejection of mass murder. There is no theoretical rejection of a host of depraved practices masquerading as "alternate lifestyles" crying out for liberation from government oppression. The Libertarian Party promises to make no moral judgement on any of it. We should all just get along and not hassle each other.

In essence it promises to permit lunacy and mass murder in the name of Liberty, all the while saying solemn things about the Bill of Rights, etcetera, etcetera.

In this context, I ask again:

What can the Libertarians offer me that I can't get in Cambodia?
 
We've discussed abortion before on TFL and found it divides us rather than unites us. Therefore, I try to avoid the subject on TFL but I'm more than willing, nearly eager, to discuss it by e-mail.

However, the Libertarian Party is not silent on abortion. Unlike the Democrats (who eagerly support abortion) or the Republicans (who support it reticently), the Libertarians want to eliminate the use of federal funding for abortion.

If it is such a "personal choice" then the government should not be paying for it.

If you are upset because the Libertarians do not call it murder, please remember the vocal Americans who apparently regard the incompletely born to be mere extraneous tissue for the woman to do with as she sees fit.

This is a firearms-related board. I am limiting my conversation on the board to our RKBA. I assuredly have other opinions - some of which are rather strong, some rather noncommittal. Those opinions are not for discussion here.

However, I would ask you, "What do the Republicans or Democrats offer you that you can't get in Cambodia? Especially if it makes you prefer their paternalistic oligarchy (where you will have NO say) over the Libertarian Party (who would at least stop using our tax money to fund abortions)."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top