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.