Libertarians To Sue State (north carolina)

thepilot.com ^ | 9 1 05 | thepilot.com

[MarkL]

Party of "limited government", my ass. Party of More Big Government.

No kidding... If there were any truth in advertising laws that could be applied to the parties, the new GOP ads would go something like this...

"The Democratic Party is the 'Party of Big Government.' We're the 'Party of Bigger Government.' But at least we're not the Democrats."

Pretty soon ,the only reason to vote for the pubbies will be, "at least we're not the dems," and that's really not much of a reason to vote for them.

Mark

[MarkL]

Of the two viable actual participants, the GOP is clearly the better choice.

I don't settle for the lesser of two evils - that's evil, because the "lesser" has exploded spending, deficits and government.

One of the best bumper stickers I ever saw was

Vote for Satan. Why settle for the lesser of the evils!

Mark

[MarkL]

Under Libertarian party principles, someone's 12 year old daughter would have the right to sell her body to a 70 year old man and use the profits of such a sale to purchase heroin or cocaine for herself.

Please show me exactly where that's located in the LP platform or bylaws, and I'll be happy to denounce the LP, right along with you. Otherwise, quit slandaring the LP.

Mark

[Stepan12]

The child molesters party

A characteristic shared by the intellectuals of the looter persuasion and their "libertarian" comrades is the tendency to feign incomprehension when faced with uncomfortable facts. Socialists act as though you are speaking a foreign language when you bring up the initiation of force in connection with their calls for taxation and confiscation of property. Libertarians do the same when questioned about their party's call for repeal of child-molestation laws.

The following quotes from published libertarian platforms will make it explicitly clear that the legalization of child molestation is part and parcel of the Libertarian Party code.

From the 1982 Platform of the Libertarian Party:

"In particular we advocate:
b. The repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals."

"No individual rights should be denied or abridged by the laws of the United States or any state or locality on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin or sexual preference."

"We believe that 'children' are human beings and, as such, have the same rights as any other human beings. Any reference in this Platform to the rights of human beings includes children."

"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 which 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."

The 1986 platform preserved the above-cited language, but greatly expanded the "Children's Rights" article to include the following:

"We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination against (or in favor of) children, just as we oppose government discrimination directed at any other artificially defined sub- category of human beings."

"We also support the repeal of all laws establishing any category of crimes applicable to children for which adults would not be similarly vulnerable, such as curfew, smoking and alcoholic beverage laws, and other status offenses. (...) We seek the repeal of all 'children's codes' of statutes which abridge due process protections for young people."

"Children should always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood."

These quotes make it clear to any thinking person that the Libertarian Party deems the recruiting of, say, six-year-old boys and girls into a life of prostitution, heterosexual or otherwise, an exercise of something the platform never defines - yet nevertheless refers to as "individual rights." Indeed, should the parents of children so used dare to question a procurer's "right" to engage their children in such a manner, let them read carefully before venturing to lift a finger to interfere. The Libertarian Platform (both versions) also reads:

"We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings, conservatorships, or instruction under confinement - - to force children to conform to their parent's or any others' religious views."

The child-molester's "right" to entice children into "voluntary" sexual performances is defended at every turn in the platform. If the child is baited with candy rather than raped by outright physical force, the Libertarian pederast can declare the event a "consensual sexual relation," or a "voluntary exchange of goods and services regarding human sexuality," or even cite the child's "assumption" of the "administration and protection of its own rights." After all, the platform plainly describes the distinction between a fully-formed, rational adult and a preadolescent child as an "artificially defined subcategory of human beings." As for the parents, any attempt to interfere, especially if based on religious convictions, is classed as "kidnapping," a practice banned by force of Libertarian law.

The essential feature which distinguishes children from adults -a feature which the Libertarian platform eschews- is rational competence. Capitalist ethics are based on man's life as the fundamental standard of value, and on his rational faculty as the essential requirement for the preservation of that value. Capitalists recognize that individual rights are a moral principle. Libertarians, to the contrary, state that their "exclusion of moral approval or disapproval is deliberate" [!]. This attitude is eloquently underscored by the platform's perfidious distortion of truth.

In the real world, laws exist which bar adults from selling alcohol, tobacco, and the like to children. The Libertarian Party platform distorts the relationship and presents it as a law directed at children forbidding them to buy those substances, then leaps to the defense of "due process protections for young people." But then, respect for the truth is not something one expects from an organization having a "deliberate" policy of destroying moral distinctions.

[TKDietz]

Just for the heck of it I thought I'd add that North Carolina's appellate judges are all elected officials. They are not appointed. I guess one could argue they do the will of the people too, like any other elected officials.

[monday]

"Um... see above, read more slowly. Perhaps the second time through you'll find that your interpretive error was explicitly explained. "

Any way you read it you come out as a bigot who wants to treat people from third parties like third or fourth class citizens. You are making distinctions that aren't there. Sorry if it offends you to know the truth about yourself, but I can't help that.

[BibChr]

LOL, whatever. Good luck with that personal issue.

Dan

[TChris]

Hogwash. Show me where the Constitution says that laws can't be challenged in court.

But you're asking for the law to be changed by the court. That's different.

You, and other Libertarians, are alleging that the statute is unconstitutional. How, exactly? Is there a provision in the Constitution which sets forth how the eligibility of political parties to appear on the ballot shall be established? I must have missed that part.

Without such a provision in the Constitution, the legislature has the authority to set it. If you don't like how they set up the eligibility of political parties to appear on the ballot, then you need to remedy it through the legislature.

[TChris]

lol... You aren't really that dumb are you?

Beginning with an ad hominem attack is always the hallmark of intelligent debate.

How will voting for a Democrat or Republican ever change the statute.

I'm quite sure I didn't say anything about voting Democrat or Republican. Did you read my post?

They are the ones who passed the unconstitutional statute in the first place.

You, as others, have alleged that the statute requiring a certain number of signatures on a petition to qualify a political party to appear on the ballot is unconstitutional. How, exactly? What provision of the Constitution has been violated by this law? Every candidate may receive votes if he/she is written in on the ballot.

Are you claiming that any group that claims to be a political party should be given a slot on the ballot, regardless of the number its members?

Oh, and speaking of credibility, since you are defending an unconstitutional statute, you have none.

Neener neener.

[Junior]

I'm a libertarian in everything but name. Rules are rules, though. They didn't make the cut; they either have to drum up more support or live with it.

[TKDietz]

First of all, I am not a Libertarian. I just don't have a problem with Libertarians challenging an election law. Frankly, I'm glad that we can seek remedies in court. You act as though this is something new and horrible. The fact of the matter is that laws were challenged in courts before our national Constitution was ever ratified. After we became a country, state laws were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court as early as the late 1700's. It was only 1803 the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. There is absolutely nothing new about the power of judicial review of legislative acts. It is a longstanding important tradition in this country, part of our system of checks and balances.

What if the Democrats dominated the legislature in a state and they passed a law that no other parties could have a candidate appearing on the ballot unless 35% of the people in that state signed a petition requesting that party be listed on the ballot? If Republicans couldn't get but 34% of the people to sign the petition, they'd be out of luck. They couldn't go back to the legislature to change the law because the Democrats in the legislature wouldn't want to let the competition in, even if the competition could only carry a couple of districts.

I don't care what people say, the legislative and executive branches of government are not always working the will of the people. Half the time we don't know what those guys are up to. They slip all sorts of obnoxious crap into legislation, and it's not all that easy to undo what they've done. Courts aren't there to write the laws, and most of the time they never touch anything passed by another branch of government. Challenges are made all the time, and almost all of those challenges fail because courts don't tend to like to tamper with the will of the legislature. Sometimes they do find laws to be unconstitutional and they'll strike those. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes significant numbers of folks are unhappy with what the court has done. A prime example of that would be the Roe v. Wade decision.

Since this country's beginnings, people have been arguing about judicial review. Personally, I think we are better off because of it. I certainly don't always agree with what the courts do, but if we want to change what a court has done, we can rewrite laws, amend constitutions, or just replace enough judges with those who see things our way. The courts can be a pain in the ass, but without them I think our legislative and executive branches would have run the Constitution into the ground by now.