2.0 Economic Liberty

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Well, that lays it out! Viva Capitalism! I'm again in full support of freedom. This is a road map all by itself to economic prosperity for as many people as possible. Anything short of the free market results in injustice, and a lowering of the general standard of living.

Not only does the party support economic rights, it upholds them as a plank in their platform. The drivel I've seen on the other parties is just that, drivel. There can be no compromises with freedom.

If I am not free to dispose of the fruits of my labor as I so choose, then those fruits, in fact, are not mine. I have heard many claims to the fruits of my labor, but none that do not, eventually boil down to simple theft. If I earn something, create something or discover something, without fraud or force, then by what right would the government take it from me? there is no moral right, only might.

The state has placed many claims on my labor in the form of taxes, and gives me precious little in return. It would be one thing if the state used my taxes to provide for services such as fire, police, court and military, but it does much more than that. The state now provided partial sustenance for a very large portion of the population. That portion has become dependent upon the state to continue to confiscate my money. This has turned the state into a criminal organization that buys off one set of voters with the labors of another. Hiding the theft behind a legal construct does not turn the crime into a virtue.

When one person is forced to work to support another, that is called slavery. The modern US Government is still in the slavery business, and it needs to be put out of business.

1.6 Self-Defense

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

The very first thing I like about this plank is that it exists at all. The other parties don't expressly acknowledge, let alone support, your right to self defense.

The second thing I like is how it begins, describing the only legitimate use of force. Notice that it talks about individual rights. Not collective rights, individual rights. This is not a trivial point. Collective rights are an aggregation, a social construct.

Collective rights are important, but they should always be subordinate to individual rights. That is, the group does not have a higher right than the individual. This may strike someone as "unfair", after all, shouldn't actions that benefit twp people outweigh actions that benefit only one? The answer is no. As soon as you allow the group to override the individual then mob rule is established. This is the road to tragedy. Collective rights exist as extensions of individual rights. "We the People..." affirmed the bill of [individual] rights.

The third thing is that it is crystal clear. Government keep your hands off! The government has continued to encrouch on the second amendment in every way it can imagine. The Libertarian party stands steadfast against such encroachment, and puts it in writing. No wishy-washing compromising. You have the right to defend yourself, and the government doesn't have any right to stop you.

This does present at least one issue, some people have, by virtue of their past violent behavior, been stripped of their right to own a firearm. This has long been held up by the gun rights deniers as a reason for registration and background checks. It would be a good argument if the government happened to be present at each transfer. The reality is that criminals will obtain firearms with or without the blessing of the government. History has yet to demonstrate that any registration or background checks have, even incidentally, reduced the number of firearms in the hands of those legally barred from having them. Background checks only serve to hinder the law abiding citizen from obtaining firearms. Registration only serves to make the task of confiscation easier.

1.5 Crime and Justice

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

There is so much to like about this plank that it is hard to determine where to begin. This single paragraph encapsulates the entire legal foundation of the nation, and the ideal under which I would like to see the government operate. The governments purpose is stated unambiguously "Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property." There is nothing in here of the socialist bent which is currently polluting both parties.

From this base it naturally flows what government should regard as a crime. It should be noted that all crimes are by legal definition. While we have an emotional understanding of what a crime is, for purposes of law we need objective definitions. "Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm." Says it all. If your behavior does not harm someone else, or at significant risk of harm, then there should be no crime.

You can see how this makes the determination of behavior as acceptable (legal) or unacceptable (criminal) very easy.

• If you mash someone with a stick, you have used force, and are guilty.
• If you steal their credit card, you have used fraud, and are guilty.
• If you drive while under the influence of alcohol, you have involuntarily placed the other drivers or your passengers, at significant risk of harm.

Everyone in law enforcement should be standing up and applauding this sort of thinking. Many of todays laws are exceptionally difficult to determine if, in fact, it has been violated. That is always the sign of a bad law.

If we seek "... a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives ...", as the preamble asserts, then it naturally follows that "Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves." Thus you have the right to be careless with your own body. You should be able to smoke, drink, ride a motorcycle without a helmet and even do other things which are now currently illegal.

The platform continues to go on in the vein of personal responsibility. If you crash your car into someones house, you are responsible for paying for damages. All parties seem to agree on this point, so it does not stand out as much, but it is proper to include it.

Finally the platform ends with a direct expression of one of the fundamental truths the founding fathers supported. The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. This is a required protection for all of us. Thomas Jefferson said it perfectly with:

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

This is essential for the judicial system to not become either an unwitting pawn of a tyrant, or an active collaborator. From time to time unjust laws may be passed, or just laws may be perverted such that the only hope for a defendant is the jury itself. The jury is, of course, peers from the community. The people must have the right to judge their own if the concept of self governance is to be upheld.

1.4 Abortion

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

It had to happen. Eventually I would arrive at a plank in the platform that I cannot support. This is part of the compromise we make with party politics. Not every member of the party agrees with every plank. The best party for an individual is the one that holds the most planks, provided none are so odious as to invalidate all the others.

Normally this platform would be such that I could not abide it. But, as the GOP has been completely ineffective at stemming the tide of abortion. The DNC is doing its level best to put an abortion in every womb. So then I lose nothing by holding my nose and accepting this platform.

However, the Libertarian Party should not take my practical approach as an indication that I have abandoned this issue. Should the party present two candidates, and one be pro-life, I shall weigh that heavily in my calculations.

This platform likely presents one of the biggest obstacles to real progress for the party. This platform is built on bad science, and bad reasoning, and abdicates the responsibility of its candidates. It rests on the false premise that the government has no standing in this issue, which in turn rests on the faulty science and reasoning that needs no more explanation.

The reversal of this plank shall be a lesser goal of mine.

1.3 Personal Relationships

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

This is another area where we really need to understand that the Libertarian party is not condoning any ones actions, nor condemning them either. The platform simply, and accurately (in most cases), states that the law is silent on this issue and it goes on to say the government has no legitimate reason to interfere with people personal choices.

This is clear and easy to understand. I think that's sometimes the problem. I believe people have become so used to double talk, called nuance, that they now expect it. When they see a simple answer they are suspicious. I understand this urge to think that big problems often have complex solutions. A simple solution, more often than not, overlooks the details.

The failure here is to believe that the ability to express the party's principles so succinctly implies it is incomplete. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Libertarian Platform is highly distilled thought. The crafters have expertly peeled away the chaff that clutters the platforms, and the minds, of the other parties.

It is a fallacy to think that every issue should be addressed in a platform, that would be a policy. The platform exists to give the party a stable mental foundation from which to reach out to new voters as well as to project power in the form of legislation, candidates and votes. By keeping the platform planks clear and understandable the party better enables itself to remain consistent and to explain itself to prospective members.

This is the key, we must explain it! Politics is a man to man sport. We have to take care when discussing our ideas with others that they get the full measure of it. The Libertarian planks fit together in a tongue and grove fashion such that while each stands on its own, they are much stronger taken as a whole. It is not enough to say to someone "The Libertarian party believes the government has no place in the bedroom", to put a fairly common modern spin on the argument regarding same sex marriages, ect.

We need to be able to stand and say things like "I don't condone homosexuality, indeed, I believe it is disgusting. But I refuse to use the power of the state to impose my feelings on someone else with the actions taken by those other people do not impact others." I have yet to see a non-traditional relationship pose any sort of violent or fraudulent threat to those outside the relationship. It does pose a moral or aesthetic one, depending on your views of those things, but those things are outside the preview of the government.

To be successful we need to be able to express our platform with all the flourish of the other parties, without losing the essence of it. Thankfully, the clarify of thought that the platform gives us enables us to apply it in the widest variety of situations, unlike the opposing platforms that, by virtue of their wordy excesses, make them unwieldable in situations other than those explicitly concieved.

1.2 Personal Privacy

1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

This plank is a bit muddled. While I agree with all of it, the message should be clarified. The first part addresses the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, shown below for reference, is about property rights. It defines the process for searches and seizures. But it does not address, directly, behavioral crimes or de jure crimes which the platform does. I understand that the bridge between these two parts is held in the title "Personal Privacy" for many of the de jure crimes are only prosecutable with the violation of privacy and the fourth amendment protects that without naming it. None the less, I would break it into two, thusly:

1.2a
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property.

1.2b
Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

The first would show steadfast property rights protections. This is something the neither major party, or more properly, the bicameral uniparty, is willing to do.

The second would show the rejection of de jure crimes, that is, those that are only crimes because the government says they are.

I know there are many people who see this and, erroneously, think that the Libertarian party condones drug use. It does not. You have but to review the first platform "Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices."

There is a large mental conflict raging in the Bicameral Uniparty, on the one hand they try to tell you that you have the right to choose what you wish to do with your body, and then on many other cases they deny that same right. Which is it?

They attempt to apply reason in the cases when they deny your right to choose how to use your own body, but all of their arguments eventually rest on a single principle. The government believes it knows what is best for you, and it has the power to punish you if you challenge it. That is a "might makes right" argument, and I reject it.

Unfortunately for myself and all freedom loving people, while might does not make right, it does make possible usurpation of liberty. Fortunately for myself and all freedom loving people the evaporation of their argument lies easily with calm discussion.

There is no such thing as a "victimless crime". The victims are those who must hide their actions from the government for fear of reprisals. We must reverse this rising tide of de jure crimes, and we can do it by crystal clear communication for principle is on our side.

* Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1.1 Expression and Communication

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

At first glance this might seem like the first amendment all over again, but it's not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly I support this. But the party platform goes farther. It also encompases control of media and technology. The US Constitution is brilliant in its foresight and flexibility, to be sure. But the language has drifted as has technology, and this platform brings it up to date seemlessly.

It also meshes perfectly with the previous plank, where, once again, the key is that you're free to do whatever you desire so long as you do not violate the rights of others. This is something I would like to focus on a bit.

Why is it that so many people feel the need to control others when the actions of those others do not adversely affect themselves? This question has never been satisfactorally answered for me. I have had answers offered, but none seem to fit the bill. It could be, and I suppose likely is, that there is no one answer, and perhaps each of the answers offered covers a portion of the guilty such that all answers together cover most of the perpitrators.

No matter how you slice it, it comes down to power. One person telling another what they must or cannot do. That is the central theme of the Libertarian Platform as best I understand it, the proper use of power.

Our country has gotten off the track and started to misuse power in some very dangerous ways. Power is neither good nor evil, but those wielding it are. The government has accumulated far too much power, and has begun to wield it against her own citizens. At this writing we still, nominally at least, own the government and can turn it around. There is no place in a civilized society for the misapplication of force, either by the government, or citizens.

In this we the people act as a counterbalance to the government. We deligate our power to the government, and control how those powers may be used. We must not forget that it is being used in our name and that we are therefore responsible for it because if we do divorce ourselves form this responsibility then something else will fill the void and once lost the cost of regaining such control may be horrific indeed. The government keeps us safe from our fellow citizens (when it's working properly) and we the people keep ourselves safe from the government. It is a balance, and at the moment we are tipping dangerously out of balance in favor of the government.

You need look no farther than the renewed interest in the "fairness doctrine" which is nothing more than censorship. It is the negation of the free will of media outlets to publish whatever they choose with it being replaced by what the government mandates they must publish. As an owner of the government I cannot, in clear conscience, tell a media outlet what it must publish for to do so would be to enforce my will upon them by the government proxy.

As a Libertarian I will stand against this at all costs.

1.0 Personal Liberty

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

This is the first plank of the Libertarian platform. It speaks volumes in very few words. I might change it slightly in the first sentence to read "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and [must] accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make." People are not free to accept responsibility because consequences always manage to assert themselves. It's a minor, perhaps semantic, point.

The Libertarian party puts right at the top of its platform what I believe to be its most sacred guiding principle. That is, do whatever you want so long as it does not involve force (or fraud) against another.

The party sets an exceptionally high bar for itself with this platform. It makes no excuses for poor behavior. It also makes no guarantees for poor choices. Your choices are yours and yours alone, and you have to live with the results of those choices.

At first this may seem harsh, but in fact it is very compassionate because it is honest. All of us, regardless of our philosophy, are fated to reap the rewards of our choices. No amount of mental trickery can avert the laws of existence. Just as in the natural world, if you jump out of an airplane you will fall, if you spend your money on only foolish things you will soon be parted from it. By being honest it forces itself to look at problems objectively and without the mental trickery that clouds the other parties thinking.

It ends with an almost humorous disclaimer where the party reserves the right to not approve of your choices. You might choose to spend your money on foolish things, and the party recognizes your right to be foolish.

This would seem to be a very key difference between the GOP/DNC* platforms and the Libertarian party. Those parties have passed a bevy of laws attempting to rule out foolishness, such as requiring one to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Why does the state presume to have the power to keep one from being foolish with their own bodies? They make arguments about "financial responsibility" and so on, but in truth they are just asserting their power to negate your freedom of choice.

* I think I'll start calling the GOP/DNC the "bicameral uniparty"

Reviewing the Statement of Principles

In my continued quest to better crystalize the Libertarian party in my own mind, and juxtapose it against the GOP and DNC (as well as all other parties) I shall continue examining the platform.

After the Preamble comes the Statement of Principles.

Sadly, I could find no parallel with either the GOP or DNC. It should scare you a little that neither major party has the ability to succinctly express their principles. However, I don't fault them completely because they likely presume their platform expresses them indirectly. Still, it seems like a good idea.

I shall now examine the document as before with an interlinear method alternating platform and my comments.

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

I don't like the word "cult". While it is technically proper, it is unduly emotional. This is likely due to the rather adolescent nature of the Libertarian party. Not to say that it is childish, but against the other parties it is clearly younger and less refined. Still, the sentiment is correct. There does seem to be a religious zealotry with respect to the powers of the government. That somehow if we just find the right powers for the government it can cure our ills and ease our suffering. I stand in lockstep with my rejection of this notion.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

This is really a restatement of the declaration of independence. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is also excellently mingled with the foundational concept that the government exists to remove force and fraud from human relationships. Talk about inclusive! No other party that I know of is so clear. They surely make similar statements, and then begin to make exclusionary statements later. This party says "live and let live and play by the rules". Who could want more?

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

I have not exhaustively checked all other parties, so I'll just let that slide, but the principle is true. The State presumes to have the right by virtue of its might, and the parties condone this behavior. The State can and will dispose of you and your fruits without so much as a batting an eye if it determines it should do so. This is no way for a civilized society to operate. The only reasonable response is to limit the powers and actions of government.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

This is again a restatement of the Declaration of Independence, with some details thrown in. It is surprising to me that the other parties cannot grasp the importance of such clear thinking. The major parties today support the government in its rejection of these notions. They betray the right to freedom of speech with acts such as McCain-Fiengold. They betray the right to private property with the wholesale expansion of eminent domain to mean anything the state wishes it to mean. Lasty, the government clearly rejects the right to life for some of its citizens.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Here is a stake in the ground that says "We uphold the principle of the free market". I'm always a bit shocked when I hear someone argue against the free market. But here is the heart of the matter laid bare for all to see. "People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others" There is one word that sums up this whole concept, and that word is slavery. I have explained this to more than one person, and often they don't get it. They are stuck on seeing slavery as requiring whips and fields of cotton, but this form of velvet covered slavery is no less egregious. Just because someone steals your production with smooth words and due process makes them no less a thief.

I find nothing in this statement of principle that I cannot support.

Public education - Preamble

Friends,

Now that I have set my course, I need to make a road map. I could just walk down to the registrars office and change my party of course, but that's not what I mean. I can articulate the DNC and GOP platforms fairly well, and if I'm going to be an effective Libertarian then I need to dig into the platform and understand it as well.

I could just dig into the platform planks, but it seems I should start from the very beginning and that's what I'm going to do. The platforms of all three parties start with a preamble, so then shall I.

All of the preambles should, of course, square against the US constitutions preamble, so I'll start with that as a reference.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is almost poetry. Call it a mission statement. It tells who is acting (We the people) what they are doing (establishing a constitution) and why (everything else), and in only 52 words.

Now to look at the Republican platform preamble. I'm shall comment on it line by line for all 605 words. This can lead to a somewhat stilted reading experience. If you wish to read it directly I suggest this source: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Preamble.htm

I shall grade each statement with how much it resonates with my values by granting a +1, -1 or 0. The platform shall be in bold, and my grades in normal type.

This is a platform of enduring principle, not passing convenience – the product of the most open and transparent process in American political history.

I do not know the process used so I'll grade this a 0.

We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance that our Republican ideals are those that unify our country:

I like this statement because it codifies the ideals, but it is structure, not content. 0

Courage in the face of foreign foes.

Sounds right. +1

An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom.

Sounds right, although I'm not sure what the GOP means by "freedom". Hopefully this document will tell me. 0

Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person.

Good news this. +1

Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another.

Sounds like feel-good stuffing. 0

Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives.

I believe this. I am not convinced the GOP does. +1

Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty.

I believe this. I am not convinced the GOP does. +1



We present this platform at an uncertain point in time.

When ever was there a certain point in time? Fear mongering. True, but still fear mongering. How is this optimistic. Losing points for internal contradiction. -1

Our country remains at war and committed to victory, but reckless political forces would imperil that goal and endanger our nation.

True. It also annoys me because this is not a principle, but a commercial. 0

In the economy and in society at large, it is a time of transformation.

Political rhetoric. 0

But the American people will meet these challenges.

Here is some real optimism, but still rhetoric. 0

Even with its uncertainties, they embrace the future, but they are also too wise to rush headlong into it.

Rhetoric. 0

We are an adventurous, risk-taking people, but we are not gamblers.

Optimistic. Honest. Rehtoric. 0

A sound democracy trusts new leadership but insists that it demonstrate the old virtues: the character and the command that, in times of conflict and crisis, have led the Republic through its trials.

This is crap. "A sound democracy trusts new leadership..." No. A sound democracy chooses proper new leadership and doesn't just trust it. This is also in conflict with the earlier statement of values "Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives." -1

This platform likewise rests on proven truths and tested wisdom as it looks ahead, both to deal with present challenges and to explore possibilities that may sometimes seem beyond our grasp.

Commercial. Might be over reaching. 0

It shows what the American people can accomplish when government respects their rights, conserves their resources, and calls upon their love of country.

This platform does only one of these three things. The GOP has hardly been the party of respecting people's rights, nor conserving their resources. But the platform does call upon love of country. -1

It is not a tribute to bigger government.

Rhetoric. 0



Our platform is presented with enthusiasm and confidence in a vision for the future, but also with genuine humility – humility before God and before a nation of free and independent thinkers.

Humility before God and the nation. Perhaps. But it is as I believe. +1

As the party of ideas, rather than a mere coalition of interests, we consider vigorous debate a strength, not a weakness.

This is a comparison between the GOP and the DNC. But as a platform for a party I would be part of this would be on the right track. Vigorous debate is a value of mine. +1

Indeed, we are a party – as we are a nation – of mavericks.

Election buzzword rhetoric. 0



Yet we stand united today because we are the one party that speaks to all Americans – conservatives, moderates, libertarians, independents, and even liberals.

Sure it does. 0

We welcome all to our deliberations in the firm belief that the principles embodied in this platform will prove to be as compelling and persuasive as they are vital and enduring.

I don't know the history. An open process is good. I'm unsure of the final output being vital and enduring. Many collaborative efforts utterly fail. 0

We do not fear disagreement, and we do not demand conformity, but we do fight for our principles with confidence that the best ideas will prevail in the end.

I actually don't have the same faith. I believe that often the better idea may fail. Poor ideal well present often prevail, at least in the short term. 0

Our party embodies a uniquely American spirit.

Perhaps true. Not enough to earn points. Other parties can probably say this, and their platforms are awful. 0

It is the spirit of independent minds, the conviction that open and honest debate is essential to the freedom we enjoy as Americans.

True. But from the party that pushed and passed McCain-Fiengold? +1

This platform is a testament to that freedom and stands as our promise to future generations that we will do whatever it takes to preserve it.

I like the sound, but I don't believe it from the same people that brought us McCain-Fiengold. +1

It is grounded on our heartfelt belief that our principles, our policies, and our vision will lead our American family, not just through present dangers, but to a horizon of prosperity and liberty mankind has only begun to explore.

Commercial. 0



With gratitude for eight years of honorable service from President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republican Party now stands united behind new leadership, an American patriot, John McCain.

Commercial. 0

In support of his candidacy and those of our fellow Republicans across the nation – and ever grateful to Almighty God for the political, religious, and civil liberties we enjoy -- we, the representatives of the Republican Party in the states and territories of the United States, offer this platform to the American people.

Commercial. 0

Zeros: 19
Pluses: 8
Minuses: 3
FINAL TOTAL: 5




Time to look at the DNC preamble now, all 1512 words. http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/dem-platform.pdf

We come together at a defining moment in the history of our nation – the nation that led the 20th century, built a thriving middle class, defeated fascism and communism, and provided bountiful opportunity to many.

True. 0

We Democrats have a special commitment to this promise of America.

Perhaps true. 0

We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security.

I agree with this, but I strongly believe the DNC and my idea of "have the chance" are different. +1

We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right.

Socialist tripe. -1

We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.

True, but it says nothing about how this would be accomplished. 0

But today, we are at a crossroads.

When are we not? 0

As we meet, we are in the sixth year of a two-front war.

So? 0

Our economy is struggling.

Lie. -1

Our planet is in peril.

Big lie. -1

A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good.

Agree with this. I have seen no such behavior from the DNC. +1

A people that prizes candor, accountability, and fairness insists that a government of the people must level with them and champion the interests of all American families.

Agreed. Again, how? 0

A land of historic resourcefulness has lost its patience with elected officials who have failed to lead.

No. -1

It is time for a change.

Yes. +1

We can do better.

Yes. +1

And so, Democrats – through the most open platform process in history – are reaching out today to Republicans, Independents, and all Americans who hunger for a new direction a reason to hope.

The GOP claimed the same thing. Same grade. 0

Today, at a defining moment in our history, the Democratic Party resolves to renew America’s promise.

Rehtoric. 0

Over the past eight years, our nation’s leaders have failed us.

Lie. -1

Sometimes they invited calamity, rushing us into an ill-considered war in Iraq.

Lie. -1

But other times, when calamity arrived in the form of hurricanes or financial storms, they sat back, doing too little too late, and too poorly.

Big lie. -1

The list of failures of this Administration is historic.

Rhetoric. 0

The American Dream is at risk.

From Obama, yes. 0

Incomes are down and foreclosures are up.

True, but not a principle. 0

Millions of our fellow citizens have no health insurance while families working longer hours are pressed for time to care for their children and aging parents.

Not a principle. 0

Gas and home heating costs are squeezing seniors and working families alike.

Might have been true when written, but still not a principle. 0

We are less secure and less respected in the world.

Sort of depends on how you define "respect". As for security, when was the last time you heard of an embasy being bombed? 0

After September 11, we could have built the foundation for a new American century, but instead we instigated an unnecessary war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan.

Sort of true. We had perfectly good reasons to attack Iraq, but the war on terror wasn't one of them. 0

Careless policies, inept stewardship and the broken politics of this Administration have taken their toll on our economy, our security and our reputation.

What would those be? Rhetoric. 0

But even worse than the conditions we find ourselves in are the false promises that brought us here.

Rhetoric. 0

The Republican leadership said they would keep us safe, but they overextended our military and failed to respond to new challenges.

Lie and Rhetoric. 0

They said they would be compassionate conservatives, but they failed to rescue our citizens from the rooftops of New Orleans, neglected our veterans, and denied health insurance to children.

Lies about New Orleans and veterans. The government is not in the business of providing health insurance to children. -1

They promised fiscal responsibility but instead gave tax cuts to the wealthy few and squandered almost a trillion dollars in Iraq.

I'm not rich. I got a tax cut. Lie. -1

They promised reform but allowed the oil companies to write our energy agenda and the credit card companies to write the bankruptcy rules.

Might be true. 0

These are not just policy failures.

Rhetoric. 0

They are failures of a broken politics –a politics that rewards self-interest over the common interest and the short-term over the long-term, that puts our government at the service of the powerful.

I believe in long term self interest. This is a +1 and a -1, so 0.

A politics that creates a state-of-the-art system for doling out favors and shuts out the voice of the American people.

This is EXACTLY what the DNC wants. And it's also rhetoric. 0

So, we come together not only to replace this President and his party –and not only to offer policies that will undo the damage they have wrought.

Commercial. 0

Today, we pledge a return to core moral principles like stewardship, service to others, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all –values that emanate from the integrity and optimism of our Founders and generations of Americans since.

Agree on the core values. +1

Today, we Democrats offer leaders – from the White House to the State House – worthy of this country’s trust.

Lie. 0

We will start by renewing the American Dream for a new era – with the same new hope and new ideas that propelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt towards the New Deal and John F. Kennedy to the New Frontier.

Commercial. 0

We will provide immediate relief to working people who have lost their jobs, families who are in danger of losing their homes, and those who – no matter how hard they work – are seeing prices go up more than their income.

Relief how? Sounds suspicious. 0

We will invest in America again –in world-class public education, in our infrastructure, and in green technology –so that our economy can generate the good, high-paying jobs of the future.

Can you say "tax and spend" any louder? -1

We will end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care, protect Social Security, and help Americans save for retirement.

Rhetoric. None of this is attainable. 0

And we will harness American ingenuity to free this nation from the tyranny of oil.

Should have said "tyeranny of foreign oil". This from the same people that prohibit every bit of oil drilling they can? Lie. But I agree with the idea. +1

The Democratic Party believes that there is no more important priority than renewing American leadership on the world stage.

Whoa. This is the most important thing? How about just following the constitution and let the world think what it will? -1

This will require diplomatic skill as capable as our military might.

Obama is not up to this challenge. Still, rhetoric. 0

Instead of refusing to confront our most pressing threats, we will use all elements of American power to keep us safe, prosperous, and free.

What mystery "most pressing threats" are these? Rhetoric. 0

Instead of alienating our nation from the world, we will enable America –once again –to lead.

Feelgood rhetoric. 0

For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure.

I embrace it. -1

Today, we commit to renewing our American community by recognizing that solutions to our greatest challenges can only be rooted in common ground and the strength of our civic life.

Rhetoric. 0

The American people do not want government to solve all our problems; we know that personal responsibility, character, imagination, diligence, hard work and faith ultimately determine individual achievement.

True! I don't think they believe it, but I agree. +1

But we also know that at every turning point in our nation’s history, we have demonstrated our love of country by uniting to overcome our challenges—whether ending slavery, fighting two world wars for the cause of freedom or sending a man to the moon.

(Has anyone told them that the DNC opposed the end of slavery?) Rhetoric. 0

Today, America must unite again –to help our most vulnerable residents get back on their feet and to restore the vitality of both urban centers and family farms –because the success of each depends on the success of the other.

Double talk rhetoric. 0

And America must challenge us again –to serve our country and to meet our responsibilities –whether in our families or local governments; our civic organizations or places of worship.

Rhetoric. 0

Americans have been promised change before.

True. 0

And too often we have been disappointed.

True. 0

We believe we must change not just our policies, but our politics as well.

True. +1

We cannot keep doing the same things and expect to get different results.

True (but effectively a repeat.) 0

That is why today we come together not only to prevent a third Bush term.

Stupid rhetoric. 0

Today, we pledge to renew American democracy by promoting the use of new technologies to make it easier for Americans to participate in their government.

Interesting. I don't believe the DNC will do this. But I generally support the ideal. +1

We will shine a light on government spending and Washington lobbying –so that every American is empowered to be a watchdog and a whistle blower.

Sure you will. Corrolary from above. 0

We are the party of inclusion and respect differences of perspective and belief.

Major lie. They don't include right to life people. 0

And so, even when we disagree, we will work together to move this country forward.

Rhetoric. 0

There can be no Republican or Democratic ideas, only policies that are smart and right and fair and good for America –and those that aren’t.

True. Basic claim to non-partisan. Repeat. 0

We will form a government as decent, candid, purposeful and compassionate as the American people themselves.

Lie. 0

This is the essence of what it means to be a patriot: not only to declare our love of this nation, but to show it –by our deeds, our priorities, and the commitments we keep.

What in the hell is this definition doing in a preamble? It can only be here to counter the view of some that the DNC is not patriotic. 0

If we choose to change, just imagine what we can do.

Commercial. 0

What makes America great has never been its perfection, but the belief that it can be made better.

Interesting. Doesn't sound true. But it's not a principle either. 0

And that people who love this country can change it.

Rhetoric. 0

This is the country of Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, and Rosa Parks – people who had the audacity to believe that their country could be a better place, and the courage to work to make it so.

Rhetoric. 0

And this Party has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose.

Commercial. 0

We have a choice to make.

True. 0

We can choose to stay the current failed course.

What's failed about it? 0

Or we can choose a path that builds upon the best of who and what we are, that reflects our highest values.

Rhetoric. 0

We can have more of the last eight years, or we can rise together and create a new kind of government.

(By "new" they mean "Socialist") Rhetoric: 0

The time for change has come, and America must seize it.

Rhetoric. 0


Zeros: 54
Pluses: 9
Minuses: 12
FINAL TOTAL: -3



And now, the Libertarian Party Preamble. All 180 words of it. http://www.lp.org/platform

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty;

Rhetoric. 0

... a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives...

Good. +1

... and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

Good. +1

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, ...

Good. +1

... that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships,

Good. +1

... and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

True. +1

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings.

Good. +1

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.

Great. +1

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

Structure. 0

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.

commercial. 0


Zeros: 3
Pluses: 7
Minuses: 0
FINAL TOTAL: 7


This might seem to be the end of it, and clearly on an absolute scale this is correct. But what about the "word value" of the preambles? After all, the DNC is much larger than either of the others.

I will compute word value by diving the words by the absolute agreement rating. Then sort them on that scale.

LP: 7 / 180 = 25 = .03888
GOP: 5 / 605= .00826
DNC: -3 / 1512 = -.00198

It is obviously clear that the Libertarian party much more strongly resonates with my personal values.

The Road to my Conversion

Friends,

For a long time I have been a party faithful soldiering on when the GOP wandered all over the political map. No longer. The nation wants steadfast leadership, not wobbly polls driven drivel.

Politics is not a sporting event. The team you are on is not a matter of personal preference, but an expression of your core values. The GOP has abandoned her core values, and myself, and many like me.

The GOP was formed to rid the US of Slavery (or more precisely, to elect Abraham Lincoln who rid the US of Slavery) and it accomplished its mission. It's time to retire the party and form a new one (or join an existing one) that will safe guard the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

When Vern Buchanan, a "conservative" and my congressional representative, cast his vote to spend 850 Billion dollars to shore up a failing system in a way that systematically rewards the careless I knew the light had vanished from the GOP.

My grandfather was a life long proud Democrat, right up until Jimmy Carter appeared on the national stage. Then he voted for Ronald Reagan and set forth an example that I have not forgotten. Politics is not a team sport. It is an ideological discussion. Values over mascots. Principles over tradition. Integrity in the face of opposition.

The question facing America today is "Will we return to slavery?" The Democrats wish to hold people of color in bondage via the debilitating effects of government largess. The GOP wishes to join them in the race. That leaves the rest of us to hold the line.

It is up to us to hold the line on government encroachment and government spending. Neither major party is willing to do it. With this in mind I must depart the party and start fresh.

Char-Lez Braden