http://movies.ign.com/objects/708/708763.html

Sie wurde von der Universität Amsterdam mit dem Ehrendoktor und als außerordentliche Hochschulprofessorin gewürdigt und mit dem Orden von Oranien und Nassau ausgezeichnet.

pffqkouc

“I believe I have a mandate from the people to exercise my own faith in some political matters, although not in any way that advocates theocracy,or government sponsored religion” is confusing double-speak. Theocracy does not mean “government sponsored religion.” The word for that is ecclesiocracy. Theocracy means “God rules.” That is what happens when civil magistrates properly exercise their Christian faith in office. At the 2004 convention in Valley Forge there was an effort to replace the crown rights of Jesus proclaimed in the Constitution Party’s platform with something more politically correct. I would hope that anyone who was present for that debate would not want to revisit it.

On point number 5, as much as I consider a strict adherence to the Constitution to be better than what we’ve got now, I do not consider the Constitution to be perfect? Do you honestly believe that the Constitution is perfect? One small example is I do not see any legitimate reason to have a government run Post Office, do you?

“Religion is private. I will not force it upon anyone. However, if 55% of people elect me, knowing I will use my Christianity to back up some laws, then I believe I have a mandate from the people to exercise my own faith in some political matters, although not in any way that advocates theocracy,or government sponsored religion. Furthermore, if 55% of people elect a non-religious man, they are voting the same for him. They want a man who will not legislate according to Christianity. However, he is stilll legislating according to his Religion. The fact that his religion is Athiest is simply detail. And as long as he is supporting his constituents’ beliefs, then it is acceptable.’”

We are not supposed to be a pure democracy, we are supposed to be a constitutional republic, remember? Mixing religion with politics leads down a dangerous path.

On 3 and 5, I heavily disagree. But id rather concentrate on our similiarities.

Number 6 is the most important part.
I also agree that Theocracy,or even that government influenced too heavily by religion is an awful thing. However,we disagree minorly here.
Alot of the founders WERE deists,this can be agreed upon. Hell, Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club. The good news is, the CP does not force members to be Christian (although it does ask that it’s candidate’s believe in Jesus.) There are many members of the CP who are not even Christian. I know personally a few deists and athiests. I personally am a Christian. The CP is not trying to persecute any non-religious people under government theocracy. Rather it is influencing its own politics with religion (Helping to decide some moral issues/social issues) and holding its candidate’s up to the same standard. Jefferson himself wrote “Endowed by our Creator.”
Not everyone believed in a “Creator” at that time, but he wrote it anyway. Why? Because he personally believed in it, and the majority of the nation did too.
Lastly, while the founding fathers did indeed fear a theocracy, they did mention God many times,even in Government documents. In the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers. And many State Governments did the same.
Furthermore, I have spoken with many CP leaders on this issue and have heard,many times over,that they would not wish to convert or pressure anyone unduly into Christianity. To quote one,anonymous, source from California…”Religion is private. I will not force it upon anyone. However, if 55% of people elect me, knowing I will use my Christianity to back up some laws, then I believe I have a mandate from the people to exercise my own faith in some political matters, although not in any way that advocates theocracy,or government sponsored religion. Furthermore, if 55% of people elect a non-religious man, they are voting the same for him. They want a man who will not legislate according to Christianity. However, he is stilll legislating according to his Religion. The fact that his religion is Athiest is simply detail. And as long as he is supporting his constituents’ beliefs, then it is acceptable.”
I will say this, I wish the platform would use more ambiguous wording. Such as “Belief in our Creator” or even “Belief in God” rather than Jesus. Although I know for a fact the CP has run a Religious Jew for candidacy before. The Platform implicitly states that the CP will not hold prejudice against any other religious affiliations. But it says also that any candidate who does not %100 agree with the platform must point out their differences.

Im well aware one can be a Libertarian and pro-life.
I am little “L” libertarian and pro-life.

“Andy Says:

January 6th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Good post Travis.

I’ve been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1996. I’ve talked politics with a lot of people since then. Out of those who identify with a political party other than Libertarian I seem to have the most common ground with Constitution Party members.

I like the fact that the Constitution Party is pro-gun, anti-income tax, anti-Federal Reserve, and anti-United Nations. I’m glad that they want to get the government out of Social Security, healthcare, education, and welfare. I also really like the fact that they oppose US military imperialism, the military draft, and domestic police state measures like the Patriot Act.

My differences with the Constitution Party are as follows…

1) The War On Drugs. In addition to the fact that the drug war has actually escalated drug abuse, I believe that people have a right to put whatever they want in their own bodies. The Drug War has also taken a great toll on our civil liberties and not to mention the enormous cost in taxes.

I know that the Constitution Party says that the only role they see for the federal government in regaurds to drugs is to keep drugs out of the country. They would keep the drug war going at the state level.

As long as drugs are illegal there will be a black market for them. It is impossible to fight the drug war without violating the Constitution. Drug abuse is stupid, but making it illegal does not solve the problem, it only makes things worse.

2) Gambling. I believe that people should have a right to do what they want with their own money. If a person wants to risk their own money in a game of poker or blackjack, or a slot machine, or a horse race, or a even a risky investment, they should be free to do so. There are all kinds of “gambles” that people take in life. Taking a job can be a gamble. Getting married can be a gamble. Moving to a new location can be a gamble. There is no such thing as a risk free life. People should be able to decide for themselves what risks they take.

3) Pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality. These activities should all be legal. If a person doesn’t like pornography then they shouldn’t look at it. They don’t have a right to tell other people what they can and can’t see. Prostitution is a voluntary activity. Homosexuality – unless of it is a case of rape – is a voluntary activity as well. One can disagree with these activities but they do not have the right to put others in jail for them. Anti-gay marriage amendments are absurd in addition to being anti-freedom. The government shouldn’t have the right to tell people who they can and can’t marry. The government shouldn’t even be involved in liscensing marriage in the first place! People should mind their own business!

I remember hearing Constitution Party Presidential candidate Howard Philips say that the government should put a tax on entertainment that is “dirty” or violent. Why? This indicates that he’s got a right to dictate what other people can watch or they’ve got to pay an extortion fee. How is this constitutional? This is no better than leftists who want to attach punishment taxes to guns or cigarettes.

4) Trade. I agree with the Constitution Party that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, and the FTAA are all a big sham. Libertarians oppose these agreements (although there a few sell out and idiot “libertarians” who embarrassingly support these agreements) not because they are free trade but because they are actually not free trade but rather government managed trade for the benifit of politically connected corporations.

Where I believe that the Constitution Party gets it wrong is that they are for protectionist tarriffs. Ideally, I do not believe in any tarriffs. Tarriffs just bring in more money for the government and the expense gets passed on to the people in the form of higher prices. High tarriffs also breed resentment from other countries and influence them to raise their tarriffs. If there are any tarriffs they should be kept low.

I believe that Americans can compete on the international market but to do so we need to eliminate barriers that hold back production. Reduce or eliminate as many taxes as possible and get rid of idiotic regulations. Cut off foreign aid and take back all tax payer funded investment funds that are invested in other countries. Visit www.CAFR1.com and read about the massive amounts of money that US government agencies have invested in other countries. Shut down the Federal Reserve and end fiat currency. If we take these steps we can have real free trade and greater prosperity.

5) The Constitution. I’m a constitutionalist from the stand point that as long as our government exsists I think that they it should obey the Constitution. However, I do not believe that the Constitution is the be all and end all of liberty. The libertarian philosophy runs deeper than the Constitution. Taking the libertarian philosophy to it’s logical conclusion there wouldn’t be any government. The ultimate goal is a voluntary society. Is this achievable? I don’t know. I do know that the Constitution only goes so far. For instance, do we REALLY need a government run Post Office?

The Constitution Party is named after the Constitution but does it really strictly ahere to the Constitution all the time? I would say no. The Constitution says NOTHING about restricting drugs, gambling, pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality. I haven’t read all of the state constitutions but out of the ones that I have read I’ve never seen anything that gives the states authority over these issues either. Maybe the party should be called the Almost Constitutional Party or the Paleo-Conservative Party or something like that.

6) Religion. The Constitution Party seems to intergrate religion into politics and pushes the myth of America being a Christian nation. Yes, a lot of this country’s founders were Christians but not all of them were. Some of them were actually deists. Most of them also understood the danger of mixing religion with politics and feared a theocracy. While there is nothing wrong with being a Christian (real Christians are good people, unfortunately many of them are phonies) it does not give one the right to force their views on everyone else. In fact, I would say that forcing your views on another person is actually anti-Christian. Here are a couple of articles that are on-line that I’d suggest that people read about Christianity and libertarianism…

“Libertarian Christian vs. Statist Christian” by Jacob Hornberger

“Jesus Was An Anarchist” (not sure who the author is)

Also check out Libertarians For Life to see that one can be a libertarian and oppose abortion.”

Paulie’s roots are not Anglo-American.

The immigration subject is debated to death in Libertarian circles. I happen to think that opening up the flood gates (more so than they are now) is a bad idea due to the exsistance of the welfare state and the huge amount of government held property. Also, when Libertarians talk about “open borders” it makes them sound like they are playing into the hands of the globalist “New World Order” crowd. I think that their intentions are good but this is the way that they come off. If we had a real libertarian society I believe that the immigration situation would fix itself. However, we aren’t going to solve any of these problems overnight. As much as I hate the Social Security program I also believe that it is something that could not be ended overnight, it would have to be phased out. The same goes with immigration.

Your explanation of Protectionist Tarriffs is WAY oversimplifying it, but I will agree that Protectionist Tariffs aren’t good, for different reasons than you.

As for denouncing Clark, bad way to go. Considering he garnered your highest vote total in history, leave him alone. I agree he was working within the government’s limitations (which is an incredibly slow and nearly impossible practice), but he got alot of media attention for you guys over in the LP.

Also, I could give less of two sh*ts that you, or the current LP platform doesnt agree with the CP. The fact is that about half of all LP members DO.
From the LA LP site.
“Unlimited permanent immigration to the United States is not desirable at the present time, and it will not be for the foreseeable future. Whatever limitations on immigration are lawfully enacted by the United States Congress should be fully enforced while they are in effect. Serious violations of immigration laws should be punished by deportation. Legal penalties should be imposed on persons and businesses hiring illegal aliens as well as on the illegal aliens themselves.”
Many more (southern and western) states share this position on immigration, and quite a few other positions with the CP. You’re doing exactly what Eric Dondero was doing. Pointing out only the good points of one Alliance,and only the negative sides of the other prospective alliance. The fact that you, personally, have no desire to make an alliance with the CP (on certain issues or candidates) isn’t important. I asked what about the LP (which you most certainly do not embody, as you are a Radical,even for the LP) and CP cooperating on certain initiatives.

I could care less about Murray Rothbard, as he never completely made up his mind on the issues, always flip-flopping from Radical Libertarianism to Pragmatic, or somehwere inbetween. This represents your entire party. There are realistic Libertarians, who recognize and respect the legitimacy (and genius) of the Constitution. Then there are the radicals, who view it as a mere contract, which can be renegotiated (sounds like a Democrats or Republican to me). This more Radical side of the LP siezed control pretty recently, and i’m sincerely hoping their reign is almost over, so the LP can get back to building, as opposed to “Purifying”.

Lastly, the Alien and Sedition acts were not implemented by our Founding Fathers, no where even near. They were enacted by the Whigs. Henry Clay’s ilk.

Their key issues:

1. Secure Borders

2. Strong National Defense

3. Punish Employers of Illegal Aliens to the full extent of the law

4. Limit Taxes to those for Constitutionally authorized expenditures(to include abolishing the IRS and replacing the current tax system)

5. Eliminate Taxpayer Subsidies and Social Programs for Illegal Aliens

6. Attain Energy Independence within five years

I disagree strongly on 1, 2, 3 and 5.

I believe the only legitimate borders are individual property lines, and the only legitimate defense is mutually voluntary. If the “defense” in question is funded coercively and the borders are used to establish an involuntary collective property right which interferes with natural freedom of association, they are in fact a transgression of rights.

This is demonstrated conclusively in point 3, where interference in commerce and mutual association is the whole point.

On #4, I would certainly abolish the IRS, but “replacing” it sends up a huge red flag. In practice, it is a lot harder to get rid of a tax – much less permanently – than institute or raise one. So, the most likely result of a massive tax structure overhaul – rather than merely cutting the current system until it is eliminated – is double taxation.

In this instance, the CP is advocating tariffs, which they also do for the purpose of protectionism. This is a very harmful economic policy that tends to wreck the economy and lead to wars, which gets back to the CP’s advocacy of secure borders and strong national defense.

As far as eliminating taxpayer subsidies and social programs, while I would
certainly privatize charity, I would do so in a non-discriminatory manner. Since I don’t believe the government is the owner of the country, I do not believe that the government has any right to make immigrants illegal; and since I don’t believe that the idea of “illegal” immigration is legitimate, except if you mean trespass against the property of a legitimate property owner, using it as the basis of policy that discriminates in favor of some people and against others is also illegitimate.

That leaves only one point of agreement, which is energy independence, but I’m quite sure we mean to achieve it differently. What they probably mean is opening up protected areas to oil drilling, deregulating nuclear power, etc – while at the same time maintaining government-insured corporate limited liability. That would create a massive incentive to create environmental damage, while short-circuiting the responsibility that a truly free marketplace would enforce against the risks and costs of pollution through government corporate protectionism.

Unlike the Greens, whose Ten Key Values I can find fully libertarian policy solutions to achieve, I can’t see how my views would be compatible with the CP, especially since their most important core value is, apparently, the implicit idea that the government owns the country, as revealed by the courting of Tancredo and Gilchrist, both best known for Know-Nothing Nativism.

==================================

Rothbardians Cannot Consistently Support Increased Enforcement of Immigration Restrictions
Posted by Micha Ghertner

The libertarian argument against open immigration, and in favor of increased efforts in keeping illegal immigrants from getting into the country, goes something like this: These illegal immigrants are mostly just unproductive leeches seeking to live the good life of an American welfare dependent. Since we native-born Americans, as taxpayers, are forced to pay for a whole host of social services, we can think of this set of social services (which includes, but is not limited to: public schools, hospitals, retirement funds, public roads, public parks, and so forth) as collective property owned by taxpayers. In other words, we taxpayers who have paid into the system have a greater claim to this property than do citizens of other countries who did not pay into this system. We can therefore treat this collective property as if it were private property, owned by the taxpaying aggregate, and we can therefore legitimately exclude those outside our group from entering the country and stealing our collective stuff.

Of course, these libertarians argue, in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be any public (i.e. state-controlled) property, so there wouldn’t be any need to exclude non-natives from crossing the border. But we don’t live in a perfect world, so we have to make do with the options available to us. As long as public property exists, we must treat it as if it were private property collectively owned by taxpayers, and we do this by protecting the border.

Note that libertarians who oppose immigration use this argument not only to justify the status quo (i.e. keep the current level of immigration fixed), but go even further and argue for an additional crackdown to reduce the current level of illegal immigration.

So you can imagine how pleased I was to read the following on the LewRockwell.com blog:

“Unfortunately, large chunks of the libertarian movement continue to ignore Rothbard’s strategic insights, particularly the importance of never advocating increases in state power. For whatever short-term gains one may think one is making by watering down the libertarian message or accepting increase in state power A in exchange for reduction in state power B, is more than outweighed by long-term losses from, among other things, confusing the public as to whether or not libertarians really are consistent advocates of liberty.”

The implication should be obvious. Regardless of whether you think the tradeoff is worth it, limiting immigration necessarily entails increasing state power, period. Whatever short-term gains one may think one is making, these gains are more than outweighed by long-term losses from, among other things, confusing the public as to whether or not libertarians really are consistent advocates of liberty.

Consistency, please?

Update: A few hours after writing this post, while researching a different subject, I came across an interesting tidbit in Bryan Caplan’s intellectual autobiography. Apparently, great minds think alike.

“I lost a lot of respect for Rothbard around 1990 when he reversed his lifelong support for free immigration. If anything ever deserved Rothbard’s classic “monstrous!” denunciation, it is our “kinder, gentler” Berlin Wall built to keep people from living and working in the U.S. because they happened to be born elsewhere. Rothbard had always refused to justify one injustice with another, but overnight the welfare system became his rationale for cutting immigration below its already heavily restricted level. When Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark made the same argument in 1980, Rothbard was outraged, citing it as “probably the greatest (or perhaps the second greatest) single scandal of the Clark campaign”:

” Note, also, how Clark has been brought to this shameful point of having locked himself into a measured, prepared order of destatization. He has already asserted that we can’t slash the welfare state until we have achieved “full employment”; he now adds that we can’t have free and open immigration until we eliminate the welfare state. And so it goes; the “gradualists” lock us permanently into the status quo of statism.”

Rothbard also noted the empirical weakness of Clark’s position: “Undocumented aliens, including Mexicans, have not gone on welfare for the simple reason that they would have exposed themselves to arrest and deportation. These ‘illegal’ aliens, as in the case of most immigrants in the past, have proved themselves to be among the most productive, hard-working members of society. Clark kicks them in the teeth, and unjustly.”

While I agree with you on everytihng you said. I believe you left out a key portion of this conversation. Why not an alliance with the Constitution Party?

According to

http://constitutionparty.org/

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

Most libertarians oppose the idea that separate human life begins at conception, and even of the ones that do believe that it does, many argue that the rights of the mother to self-ownership of her body override those of the unborn child. In other words, they believe that no one has the right to claim the resources of another without consent, view the fetus as a trespasser and abortion as a form of eviction. There are exceptions:

http://l4l.org/

But that is a minority position within libertarianism, and contrary to the current platform of the LP.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

Certainly something we can agree on, if the CP means it.

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

This is anathema as a government-enforced policy to libertarians, although many (but not all) consider it socially desirable. Obviously, the CP means that they should use state coercion justified by theocratic rhetoric to enforce their idea of family values.

To secular libertarians, this is a dangerous violation of natural human rights and a singularlly bad justification for state initiation of force.

To libertarians of faith, it presents the additional problem of the state taking upon itself the role of judging in the name of God, thus usurping His throne – the same crime for which Lucifer was cast out of heaven.

Libertarians can never use divine will to justify coercive anti-liberty policies by the state.

4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

Something we agree on, if the CP means it.

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

Presumably, as Amended – otherwise, this leaves the distinctly bad impression that the CP favors disenfranchising women and 18-20 year olds and legalizing chattel slavery, among other things.

While many libertarians support Constitutionalism as a pragmatic first step towards liberty, it is not consistently libertarian, granting some powers to initiate coercion to the state.

Some libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner, reject the notion of constitutionalism altogether.

6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

States rights can be seen in two distinctly different lights from a libertarian perspective: decentralism away from the concentration of power in the hands of the federal government on the one hand – something most libertarians support – and, on the other, the idea that states have rights.

Ultimately, libertarian philosophy rejects the idea that states have any rights at any level of government, holding that all rights reside solely in individual sovereignty.

In some practical cases, such as segregation at the state level coming in conflict with federal desegregation efforts, there is controversy within libertarian thought as to whether individual rights or decentralism was the more important principle.

Paleolibertarians might hold that decentralism is the more important principle, but many libertarians disagree.

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

We can agree on foreign alliances. We disagree about trade.

Paleolibertarians are on the side of the CP on immigration, but this is a position at odds with libertarian logic:

this blog does not “do” this URL well, so you may be able to cut and paste:

http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/07/04/
rothbardians-cannot-consistently-support-increased-enforcement
ofimmigration-restrictions/

9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries+demolition