So party positions on free trade, immigration (with which I disagree adamently), privacy rights, open government, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free association of adults, and the freedom to use narcotics are all capital interests? Get a grip man, while we do support capitalism whole-heartedly, but to attempt to paint the Libertarian Party in the same light as the corporatists in the GOP is a failing proposition. In fact, the LP draws most of our new members from pools of Republicans fed up with the social conservatism of the GOP. We also don't have a manifesto. Just because self-described libertarians write "manifestos" defining the philosophy of liberty does not mean they are; a) Party members, b) True libertarians, or c) Mentally stable. You need to visit lp.org for real information concerning the party before you run your mouth.

Well, had you read my post, you would know that I defined natural rights as those you would have absent any human contact. These numerous rights can be categorized into your right to life (ie, not be killed or harmed), your right to liberty (your right not to be a slave or oppressed), and your right to property (your right to keep what you take from nature and put to practical use, or, given human interaction, that which you have justly acquired through trade). These rights therefore are derived from not a higher power, but from the notion of individualism, but nice attempt.

I'm an atheist actually. The purpose of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property, as those categories of rights are the only rights we would be guaranteed without human interaction (save bears mauling us or squirrels stealing our food, but you get the idea). Our Constitution is steeped primarily in this tradition, so much so in fact that most libertarians, even the most extreme members of the party, can compromise with others and agree that strict adherence to the Constitution is acceptable (which is why nearly all of us support Ron Paul).

Well, you're wrong. Do a little (a lot) more research.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Read the US Libertarian manifesto. Liberty for individuals is only an afterthought and granted only when it doesn't interfere with liberty for capital.

I've gone through the US Libertarian party manifesto point by point and post it previously. I can't be bothered doing it again since the hard-core US Libertarian party members just deny it and pretend otherwise.

Every political party has one. Go check our your party website.

I have been very explicit - I am referring to US Libertarian party.

I'm not talking about random libertarian nutjobs posting blogs.

And if you understood political philosophy, that which is not created by humans, ipso facto, must have been mystically created by God.

There is only two choices here. Either your rights were created by humans acting in concert, or by God granting those rights. There is no other option available here.

Who granted your inherent rights? Where did they come from? Did they just magically appear?

Again, you deny humans create these rights and you deny God creates these rights.

So where did they come from? How do you know they are there?

This is colorful. No doubt the irony of your words escapes you.

Well, here is a link to the Libertarian Party website and, specifically, the Party's platform (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml). Now, provide the exact link to the page in the website that shows a MANIFESTO (it must state that it is a manifesto) and prove with exact quotes in context that liberty for individuals is only an afterthought. Oh, and you must prove that it is a manifesto in the sense that you are clearly using the term - which is in a derogatory sense - much like The Communist Manifesto.


See above.

See above.

Must it? What about evolution? What about humans having evolved from lower life forms (for those who believe in such silliness)? Why then couldn't a political philosophy have simply evolved?

The natural rights folks obviously disagree with you.

Why must rights have been granted at all?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

What is a libertarian? Well, without getting confused a mish-mosh of political history, science, and philosophy, the best question to ask is: "What is a libertarian in the modern world?"

In order to answer that, we have to say what a libertarian is not. One of the common models of political association is this: Split people's beliefs up into two categories, social and economic. Social has to do with civil liberties and rights; economic has to do with the government's fiscal policies, national economic plans, and policies on the environment and things that affect the nation's business. Conservative economic policies are against government control of business and is trying to reduce government spending on social programs and the like; liberal economic policies are ones for putting restrictions on businesses, spending lots of money on socialist programs. Liberal on rights means to be for allowing individuals a broad range of rights and civil liberties; conservative usually limits those rights.


Pure Liberal: liberal on social and economic issues
Pure conservative: conservative on social and economic issues
Libertarian: liberal on rights, conservative on economics
Populist: conservative on rights, liberal on economics


Libertarians at large tend to favor other policies not usually held by other liberals, for example anti-gun control, pro ending the drug prohibition, and anti-banning of public smoking. So it wouldn't be untypical of a libertarian to have these basic beliefs:

Pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro appointing strict-constructionist judges (Reading the Constitution literally), anti-business regulations, pro-free trade, pro-lowering taxes, anti-national health care, pro-welfare reform, and things of the like.

I have participated in two LP campaigns, one presidential. I am a MEMBER of the party. We don't have a manifesto, and our politics are individual-centered, not capital-centered. Yes, the right to accrue and create capital is an important part of our platform, but that is a consequence of individual liberty. If we were in favor of the right to accrue capital at the expense of individual liberty, we would support subsidies to corporations, which, in fact, we reject out of hand.

http://www.lp.org

It's my homepage. The closest thing we have to a "manifesto" is the Statement of Principles (found http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml ). You'll notice that INDIVIDUAL rights are listed FIRST and trade issues second. Hell, we address gender rights before starting in on economics. You're wrong, you didn't even bother to look this up. Had you done the 5min of google searching, you wouldn't be making such absurd accusations.

And you're wrong, see above.

Then about whom are you talking? I just demonstrated that Libertarian Party is dedicated to individual liberty first and foremost. You can't win this argument, I've been shouting these principles at rallies and campaigns since I was 17.

Not true. Your dichotomous relationship requires that rights need to be created to be understood, this is illogical. Whether God exists or not (and I believe he does not), humans, absent other human interaction are alive, free from intervention, and able to create and own property.

See above.


Because rights to life, liberty, and property are not creations, they are understandings.

Walk into a room by yourself. Nobody will kill you, nobody will enslave you, and nobody will steal from you. This is the basis of individual rights.

I just demonstrated that you have no grasp of the Libertarian Party's platform, and that you are incapable of thinking beyond a simple black/white relationship. Visit the links I've provided and try to tell me that my party supports economic freedom moreso than individual liberty.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

A right is a social protection of a key welfare preference/interest for a given individual. Ultimately, the function of a right is to create a functional society that isn't miserable. They are valuable insofar as they provide for the general utility.

They are neither innate nor handed down by God. They're social inventions that have practical use, and they can be added to or limited insofar as it serves the general welfare in the long run. In this respect, they are like heuristics or general rules of thumb for conduct in society. That one can naturally do something is not synonymous with a right or a right to do something.

__________________

Then you and the founders have very different views on rights.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

I do have a different view from the Founders. I am not a libertarian, and they held relatively Libertarian views. Additionally, they believed in natural, inalienable rights. I don't believe they exist, nor do I see their argument for them compelling. They basically just assert they exist and take it at face value.

I see rights as useful tools: ethical tools that promote public welfare. If they weren't useful to that end, there would be no reason to have them. A lot of people think copyright laws are actually made to honour the work of the individual: that's actually a secondary concern. The primary reason they exist is to protect the public interest.

I take a more Utilitarian view of rights. I neither support inalienable natural human or non-human animal rights in themselves. I do support them as political tools.

__________________

Then you contend that if the killing of five innocent people will advance the welfare of ten others, the killing should commence?

Luckily, our Constitution sides with the libertarian schematic. Live Free or Die.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

In and of itself (outside of any context), yes, it's ok to kill 5 to promote the welfare of more than 5, given that you are equalizing the benefit. A loss of life would have to match up with gaining a similar life or eliminating considerable suffering. But that's extra-contextual. The scenario changes in real-life because it's not that simple. There are additionally consequences that would alter the ethical equation.

For instance, if Hospitals started wacking people to harvest their organs, despite it being a good thing inherently, it would cause panic and probably devastate the credibility of the hospital institution.

We already sacrifice the lives of some today for the lives of others. Every government uses a Utilitarian calculus for policy. It just depends on what extent.

__________________