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.