Here are three questions you can ask to help determine if the claimant is truly libertarian, or just a someone jumping on the trend:

(1) When is it right for the U.S. to send troops to another country?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “never.” Some libertarians may also extend this to emphasize that the U.S. has no business occupying countries, though may see some well-targeted actions against an immediate threat as a means of self-defense. The assertion that the U.S. has any business forcing its ideas on another country is an empirical claim. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to be the worldwide hero for human rights. Individuals and private organizations can choose to be part of these efforts, but this is *not* government business.

(2) How should law define marriage?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “there should be NO laws defining marriage, let alone rewarding or punishing an individual based on marital status.” Some libertarians may also remind us that current marriage laws were intended to discriminate, and thus the only proper solution is to repeal them, not to supplement them with further discriminatory allowances or restrictions. In essence, the government should not be in the business of defining “marriage,” and if two consenting adults want to enter into a legal civil union, there is nothing that should restrict them from being able to do so.

(3) What’s the best solution for raising taxes?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “get rid of all government spending that requires taxes for funding.” Some libertarians will go further to explain the more we submit our money to the government, the more of our individual power we surrender to a political agenda. As there is no such thing as a “common good” that all individuals will agree on, majority rule is inherently flawed as a means of providing “what’s best for everyone.” Libertarians believe that “what’s best” is to leave an individual to be responsible for himself and his personal possessions, provided he does no harm to anyone else.

BONUS: What is the solution to the drug problem?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “repeal the laws against illegal drugs.” Some libertarians prefer to ease in to this, knowing public opinion needs time to recover from the scare tactics of the anti-drug movements of the last few decades. However, almost all libertarians agree that lives could be spared, and even saved, if some drugs (like marijuana, which has been consistently proven less harmful than alcohol) are made fully legal.

The overarching theme here is “non-aggression.” The most basic of libertarian principles, on which platforms are based, is outlined in the following often-used pledge:
“I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS”

If a person is not willing to take such a pledge, I would dare say his libertarian claim is questionable.

Yes.

I agree with the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) which states, “Although the Association strongly encourages helmet use by all motorcyclists, it maintains a long-standing fundamental belief that adults should continue to have the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet.”

One of the reasons such laws exist is because of the state-funded portion of emergency services provided to those with severe trauma following a motorcycle accident. Helmets can reduce head trauma, but as the AMA states, “helmet use alone is insufficient to ensure a motorcyclist’s safety,” and forcing cyclists to wear helmets is not going to reduce the need for emergency services when cyclists have accidents. Education on safety, required by a road test or safety course to obtain a motorcycle endorsement from the NC DMV, goes a longer way to creating a safe cyclist than requiring specific equipment.

Therefore, it is my stance that the government should not spend its valuable financial resources enforcing this liberty-violating restriction against adult cyclists. Additionally, the government should protect the rights of others from being held accountable for that individual rider’s decision, forcing the rider to be responsible for his own safety choices.

Read the AMA’s complete statement, including regarding minors who are motorcyclists or motorcycle passengers, at the following link: http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/helmet.asp

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

First, if you, like me, grew up hearing “cult” used to describe groups who were organized in favor of some obscure and seemingly ominous religion, this statement may not digest well. Putting aside this emotionally charged word choice, though, consider its varied definitions instead:

cult: noun
1 : formal religious veneration: see worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
(copied from m-w.com)

Definition 5 quoted above is the intended meaning of the word “cult” in this context. I do not perceive the party as stating that it is challenging some religious stance or worship of government, but that it is challenging the devotion toward an omnipotent government. Personally, I am against the use of the word “cult” in this context, not because of the emotion is stirs, but because it refers to a meaning of the word that is less popular. (Dictionaries typically order definitions, per part of speech, in descending popular use at the time of publishing.) For clarity of intent, I would prefer “movement toward an omnipotent state” instead of “cult of the omnipotent state.”

Second, “omnipotent state,” on first reading, may sound like a harsh criticism against all organized government. However, taken in context, it refers to the “cult of the omnipotent state,” which is an emotionally charged and brutally concise way of saying “the state that has absolute power over its people.” Libertarians are, first and foremost, in favor of individual liberties, recognizing that each statesman is elected for the purpose of representing these individuals. An omnipotent state sacrifices individual rights in favor of some “greater good” for all citizens, deeming its citizens incapable of personal responsibility.

Finally, there is one very tiny word that is making a big difference here, changing the tone of the sentence to conjure thoughts of accusation: the as used in “the omnipotent state.” Note that in my rewording I changed “the” to “an” to imply that the state could be omnipotent, but that it was not already, nor were the intentions of those in the “movement toward” it always aware that they are moving in that direction. In other words, I perceive the “cult of the omnipotent state” as an organized movement in favor of giving all power over to the government. Despite this perception, I think the actual intention of the party was to refer to the general attitude of giving government power, one sacrificed right at a time, to achieve some great goal we feel strongly about, and often without awareness of how each sacrifice impacts our individual rights over time.

There are several in the Libertarian Party who oppose this wording and move regularly to change it. If that movement becomes a large enough majority in the Libertarian National Convention, there is likely to be a change. Otherwise, it will remain as it is. It is my opinion, though, that the party should consider the impact of wording in an effort to clarify its intention to voters considering changing from a “little L” to a “big L” Libertarian. It is my opinion that the exact same thing can be said with an equally powerful impact in a way that is less likely to result in misrepresentation of the party’s intentions.

I start with the Preamble, which reads:

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.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

The founders of the US government stated clearly that we hold the following truths to be “self-evident,” or “blatantly obvious” for those more obliged to use such a description, meaning that they need no proof:
* All men (people) all created equal
* All men (people) are endowed by “their Creator” with certain unalienable rights, meaning rights that are theirs alone and cannot be stripped from them
* Among these unalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

The Pledge of Allegiance recited in reverence to the flag of the United States of America states that we also pledge allegiance to a republic that observes “liberty and justice for all.”

It is curious that as a nation that we have become so caught up in the “justice” portion of our pledge that the original concept of “liberty” has become horribly sacrificed. We currently have a government that seems to think that its citizens cannot take care of themselves. Government entities take money and property from its citizens and redistribute them with the justification of keeping people protected, educated, healthy, and steered on the right moral track. In these ways, the nation is moving toward socialism, in direct contradiction to the original goals of the republican democracy.

How much of an individual’s life is the government’s responsibility? Are people no longer expected to be responsible for themselves, free to pursue their own brand of happiness, and trusted to respect others’ rights to the same if they wish to continue their freedom?

Libertarians seek to preserve the value of “liberty” as it was often expressed by the nation’s founders. Libertarians believe that it is in the nation’s interest to trust individuals to make decisions for themselves, and to simply ensure that those decisions do not interfere the rights of others. We can truly have a free and democratic society when when government and authoritarian entities reserve their powers and do not extend their scope to removing the rights of individuals.

Individual rights “is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world,” as stated in the Preamble. Therefore, on a world-wide scale, Libertarians also believe in respecting the rights of other nations to make decisions for themselves without US government interference.

The Preamble ends with a reminder that though the platform states what Libertarians believe, it does not necessarily resemble the goals of the party or its elected public servants. Instead, the party goal is simply “a world set free in our lifetime,” and the platform is a statement of how the party believes such a goal might be accomplished in today’s United States of America.

Does the party intend to make drastic changes on a large scale in a short time through elected officials? No. There are very few in the party who would immediately and drastically restructure their government at any level. The people of the US need to be weaned from government dependency and lead back toward to self-government. Many Libertarians believe that because individuals can govern their own lives, many changes can start at a local level with communities willing to take the necessary steps toward more freedom. Libertarians elected for national-level positions would ensure that the federal government interferes less with those who make decisions for what is right for themselves as individuals, for their communities, and for their states.

In my next post, I’ll explore the Statement of Principles, perhaps in two parts.

For the Liberty of this great nation,
Stephanie Watson