Libertarian Party vs. Constitution Party

On one of my recent posts, Bill Dodge commented by saying : "(Note: I do realize that this comes from the Constitution Party Vice-Chariman. However, I posted this nonetheless because 1. Rejecting something just because it is from a different political party is wrong and 2. I agree with what this guy says.)

"Well said. The CP and LP have many similar stances. We ought to focus on our shared beliefs and work together to win elections, rather than debating and opposing each other because of issues we disagree on..."

Absolutely right, Mr. Dodge.  However, many people are confused as to the differences between the two parties, and this post will hopefully clear it all up.

"On the surface, the LP and the CP appear to be quite similar.  The very name of the Constitution Party appeals to the libertarian-leaning voter looking for a political party dedicated towards returning to a government strictly bound by the Constitution--as the Libertarian Party wishes for also.  Additionally, the LP and the CP are very close on issues like foreign policy, Second Amendment rights, economic policy and health care."

But...the CP is very much different from the LP on issues like gambling, pornography, the judiciary, and gay rights.

"One might remember the saying in grade-school geometry that 'all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.'  Well, the same can be said of libertarians and Constitution Party members.  Many Constitution Party members are libertarians, in some way, shape or form.  However, there are very few Libertarians--if any at all--that would comfortably identify themselves as ascribing to the Constitution Party platform. 

"There is a simple explanation for this: Christian members of the Libertarian Party recognize that the basis of their religion is the idea of free will and volition, and that their morality does not need to be reinforced or supported by government laws or coercion.  The Constitution Party, for whatever reason, finds that government should be a model for morality--that is, Christian morality--and all semblances of behavior and lifestyles contrary to this behavioral model should be eliminated through "Constitutional" government methods."

There you have it. The similarities to the two parties are fine and dandy, Mr. Dodge, but you have to realize the differences as well.  The Libertarian Party is the only true way to achieve a free and prosperous society, and the Constitution Party is almost (let me make sure you get that: ALMOST) promoting a quasi-theocracy.  Christians should be testaments to the power of the Christian message of Jesus and should evangelize to all people of the earth. However, none (at least those who believe the Christian libertarian philosophy) believe this call to evangelize can be replaced by a call to legislate morality through the government.

I'd like to close with an excerpt from the LP's platform and some basic differences between the CP and the LP.

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

The Basics:

Libertarian Party founded in 1971.

Constitution Party founded in 1992 (changed name in 1999)

Libertarian Party Avg. Vote Since Founding: 368,000

Constitution Party Avg. Vote Since Founding: 117,460

Libertarian Party Highest Presidential Vote Total: 921,128 (1.1%)

Constitution Party Highest Presidential Vote Total: 189,820 (.2%)

(Special thanks to Andrew Davis for the basics and the quoted words.)

Summary of the LNC Convention

The Libertarian National Committe held a convention from November 20-21.  To summarize the events:

LNC fails to pass budget.

LNC hears one-sided report on Oregon.

LNC launches lock up a million dollars or some similar amount in a building in DC.

LNC allocates money for ballot access and places no limit on amount.

LNC puts National Convention in a luxury resort a $50 cab ride from the airport.

LNC refuses to consider Florida Resolution.

LNC refuses to consider Ruwart’s secret list issue.

LNC elects Bylaws committee: Starr Karlan Morris Carling Goddard Rutherford Johnston Oates Kirkland
Moulton

Root reports LNCC spent $7500 on candidate support in 2010. The LNC spends no money in support of specific candidates.

Flood reports on extremely interesting path to make drastic improvement in LNC phone system and affiliate phone systems.

Ruwart reports membership for the year is completely flat, and no one appears concerned.

LNC ExComm had failed to carry out its mission to prepare a detailed budget.

In my opinion, the convention was very poorly done. Yes, there were some good points, but, I am ashamed that the LNC ran such a lousy convention.  I sincerely hope that they will do better for the Libertarian Presidential Convention in 2012.

Nero is Still Fiddling Away

by Darrell Castle
Constitution Party Vice-Chairman
 
(Note: I do realize that this comes from the Constitution Party Vice-Chariman. However, I posted this nonetheless because 1. Rejecting something just because it is from a different political party is wrong and 2. I agree with what this guy says.)

Legend holds that when Rome was burning from fires intentionally set, or from the wood and straw shanties of the poor which spread the fires throughout the city, Emperor Nero played his fiddle instead of mobilizing forces to save the city.

We can apply this example to America during the election process and especially post-election. There is much rejoicing among Republicans because the party has regained control of the House of Representatives and made some gains in the Senate.

While there is nothing wrong with rejoicing in victory, I can’t help but wonder if those who want Constitutional government understand that little or nothing has changed.

None of the Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, even give lip service to ending the Federal Reserve’s control over our monetary system. Until that control is ended and the power to create money is returned to the American people, no real change of a positive nature is possible.

It is the central banks, with their power to create and loan money into existence at interest, that allows them to use their corporations and media to buy the politicians that keep their financial interests paramount.

The final word came to my attention about noon today that the Federal Reserve just announced a $600 billion stimulus plan to create jobs and “improve the economy.”

This is an outrage, and every member of Congress should be screaming at the top of his or her lungs, but instead Nero just keeps playing.

This new effort to “improve the economy” will probably be the final nail in the dollar’s coffin. The central bankers will have what they seem to want, then: chaos, confusion, disorder, and world currency. Their dream will come to final fruition as they control the entire world’s money and with it, all of humanity.

Is there anything good that came from the election? Well, yes, of course some good things happened. I must admit that I enjoyed the interview Michele Bachmann (R MN) did with Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Here’s an excerpt:

Mathews: “Are you hypnotized…in a trance?”
Bachmann: “The American people are the ones coming out of our trance. I think people are thrilled tonight. I imagine that thrill is probably maybe not so tingly on your leg anymore.”

Folks, it just doesn’t get any better than that. Now, if only she understood that the Fed has to be ended and a new monetary system begun, what a candidate she could be.

The last two years...

On November 4, 2008, two years ago to the day, Barak Obama was elected President of the United States. He campaigned on a promise of hope and change from the way that the GOP has run things. So, he got elected by a large margin.

What is the result? Deficits, unending wars, massively bigger, bloated government, and the destroying of our Constitutional liberties and freedoms that we as Americans hold so dear.

What do we do? We need to defend our Constitutional liberties. We need to join the Libertarian Party, the only political party that will preserve our liberties. The GOP has eroded our freedoms. The Democrats have eroded our freedoms. Libertarians will end this erosion and give us back the nation that we love.

We need to invite the masses to join the LP, and hold honest debates over our domestic and foreign policy. Shutting down the opposition is not the answer. Rather, refuting the opposition’s arguments and converting our foes if possible is the answer.

We need to save our nation and take back America…before it is too late.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry

"The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it." -- Thomas Edison

Would we be better off with a third political party?

By Richard Winger
 
Contrary to claims from those who assert the introduction of third parties into our political system would only worsen the existing problems of gridlock, American history shows that third parties actually enhance the positive consequences of a two-party system. Here's how:
 
In a healthy two-party system, the major parties are distinguished from each other by a clearly differentiated platform. Voters, for the most part, enthusiastically hold allegiance to one of these parties and participate with high turnout at the polls. The parties are characterized by internal cohesion. When these conditions exist, the two major parties will ideally protect the political system against tyranny and legislative gridlock.
 
Using the criteria of higher voter turnout, the absence of gridlock and the exchange of power between two major parties, we see that our two-party system was healthy in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. During that time, control of the House passed back and forth, on the average, every four years. Each party was clearly differentiated in its platforms. And almost 80 percent of eligible voters went to the polls from 1876 to 1892.
 
A key reason for this vibrancy was the existence of many vigorous and powerful third parties. Some examples are the Greenback Party, the Union Labor Party and the Peoples Party. These groups forced the major political parties to pass significant anti-monopoly legislation as well as important labor legislation.
 
But these parties did more than simply force the two major parties to adopt various policies. Third parties have always provided an emotional bridge for voters who are weary of supporting one major party but aren't yet ready to vote for the other.
 
There is another crucial contribution. The emotional bridge provided by a third party not only lures voters to the polls-it can also help turn one of the major parties out of power. Without the third-party bridges, the party in power might never be defeated, a situation that could lead to stagnation.
 
We need third parties more than ever to introduce new ideas into the system, provide an outlet for people unhappy with current government policy, and make it possible for some third party to grow into a new major party, replacing one of the existing parties.
 
Richard Winger is the editor and publisher of Ballot Access News.

Vote Libertarian tomorrow!

Dear Friend of Liberty,
Tomorrow is Election Day. If you haven't already voted, please go tomorrow and vote for every Libertarian on your ballot. (See here for a complete list of over 800 candidates.)

Also, please contact your friends and family and encourage them to vote Libertarian as well. Win or lose, every vote for a Libertarian sends a clear message for liberty.

According to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, 82% of voters live where they can choose Libertarians.

Unfortunately, in Washington D.C., where I'll vote, there are no Libertarians on the ballot. I've read about the candidates from other parties who are on the ballot. None have libertarian political views -- that's why it is so important to have Libertarians on the ballot. Perhaps I'll write in my own name for every race in D.C., or I may just leave the ballot blank.

When contacting your friends, feel free to point out how similar the policies of Republicans and Democrats have been.

You could also tell them that, according to Project Vote Smart, Libertarians show more political courage than Republicans or Democrats.

If they are Democrats, you might point them to this press release about anti-war voters.

If they are Republicans, you might point them to this one about how Republicans owe an apology to America.

I am especially thankful to all of our candidates, their families, volunteers, and donors who have given their time, effort, and money this campaign season. Please don't let up until the polls close Tuesday evening.
I expect to be posting election results and analysis throughout the week. Due to the large number of candidates, I'm unable to predict exactly what we'll be publishing when. However, please check LP.org frequently.

Also, there is always lots of discussion on our Facebook page.

Thanks again to all who have contributed this election season, and best wishes on Election Day.

Vote Libertarian tomorrow!
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

"Why I'm a Libertarian" - A Powerful Essay by a High School Senior

By Joel Bock

As a senior in high school, it is finally time for me to apply to colleges. Many people see this with loathing of all the work they must do on top of homework. While I do not enjoy filling out applications, I saw the application essays as a chance to express my personality and ideas. Two of the colleges where I am applying require the Common Application. One requirement of the Common Application is to write an essay on a topic of one's choice, but several suggested topics are given. The topic I chose states as follows: Discuss some issue of personal, local, national, or international concern and its importance to you. I thought this choice gave me an excellent opportunity to state my views in political science. The objective of the essay is to explain to the intellectual non-libertarian what the basic moral premise of libertarianism is, and what it implies. I discuss how I became a libertarian and how that has shaped my outlook on life. I am aware that discussing such "extreme" views could scare away colleges, but I feel that if they will not accept unique ideas, then it is not the college I should be attending. My application essay is below.

I have been interested in politics since a young age. My father is a pro-free market Republican, while my mother is a pro-human rights Democrat. Both have strong political views. This has given me education in two opposing political views. I was first introduced to libertarianism by a friend during middle school. He was a college economics major who supported free markets, and he felt that Libertarians were the only political party that supported both economic and individual freedom. This was my first link to libertarianism. Last summer, my father mentioned the website LewRockwell.com to me. This website has daily articles about libertarianism and its application to our government today. The writers for this website turned my emotional appeal for libertarianism into a philosophical and moral conviction. They revolutionized my political views from a neo-conservative Republican, into a radical, freedom-loving libertarian. Libertarian philosophy is very basic, defined, and absolute, which is not contained within the philosophy of Republicans or Democrats.
The basic moral premise of libertarianism is as follows: Every human has a right to life and property, and the initiation of force in violation of these rights is wrong. This is very simple. It tells us that theft, murder, and rape are evils that violate another’s natural right to life and property. However, taking a closer look at this moral premise shows that the government commits some of these acts. Any action the government takes has a moral purpose because whoever is behind that action believes it is the right thing to do. Taxation, since it involves the government, is the initiation of force against human beings to take their money. Thus the essence of taxation is theft. The morality of taxation states it is right to steal a man’s money, which he has worked to earn, then use it as the thief sees fit.

There are two main arguments against libertarianism. One argument states that property is theft, and since the rich own most property, the poor must receive compensation. The problem with this argument, however, is that to steal, there must be property in the first place. Property must precede theft, not the opposite. For example, if an explorer were to find uninhabited land, claim it for his own, and grow a farm on this land, he did not steal anything from anyone. He merely took advantage of unclaimed resources. If he later sold his land, it would be a mutual exchange in which the buyer would then become owner of the property.
Another argument against libertarianism is that the people, by majority vote, have agreed to a social contract (the Constitution), and thus we must carry out this contract without complaint. In the case of America’s social contract, the Constitution, the people and the states agreed to give power to the federal government in exchange for defending their natural rights (religion, expression, property, etc.). However, if one side breaks the binding of the contract, the contract is no longer valid. It is quite clear to both conservatives and liberals that the government does not always adhere to the Constitution. The conservative sees the unconstitutionality of the welfare state and business regulations, while the liberal sees the unconstitutionality of wars, breaches on civil liberties, and special benefits to corporations. It is the duty of the people to speak out for their sovereign rights in order to live in freedom and prosperity.

Many will still believe that the poor must receive care or that we must defend our nation through the government. Though I believe a free market with no government interference would help the poor in more ways than welfare can, some circumstances are beyond the control of anyone. Thus, charities can provide adequate care, and people should voluntarily contribute to help those who are underprivileged. National defense is also very important because a nation needs to defend its freedom. This should be the sole duty of the federal government, while the state governments should provide the people with services such as roads and police. The question will arise as to how these roles are to be funded if there is no taxation. Every individual has an incentive to support these basic operations of government, since they are beneficial to all. Thus individuals would voluntarily contribute to help support this government. I believe that the path of taxation leads toward government oppression. It is a gradual process, but eventually everyone’s freedom will be at risk, unless the people rally to support the libertarian ideals of individual and economic liberty.