Libertarian Party Opposes Civil Liberties

Libertarian Party Opposes Civil Liberties

The LP and RLC are actually against liberty on *every*
civil liberties issue and *every* economic liberty issue!
For example, the LP and RLC claim they're for the
individual right to use marijuana, have freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of lifestyle, etc.
Yet the LP and RLC are actually against *all* of those
civil liberties, because they would allow local
governments to use a certain trick that would enable
them to make arbitrary laws against marijuana, freedom
of religion, freedom of lifestyle, etc.

Specifically, the LP and RLC would allow local
governments to make such arbitrary laws, as long as
those local governments don't use the word
"government", and instead call themselves by the
euphemism of "landowning companies", and as long as
they don't use the word "laws" or "local charters",
and instead use the euphemism of calling them "lease
conditions".

Yet, some land-owning companies control more territory
than some municipal governments, and the LP and RLC
would allow further expansion of the powers of local
governments/landowning companies - so, the LP and RLC
are actually in favor of allowing local governments to
make arbitrary laws that violate civil liberties, such
as use of marijuana, freedom of religion, freedom of
lifestyle, etc. So, the LP's and RLC's stands are contradictory on
*every* civil liberties issue.
|
For the same reason, the LP's and RLC's stands are
contradictory on *every* economic issue, because they
would allow local governments/landowning companies to
make arbitrary laws restricting economic liberty, by
such means as licensing laws (called by the euphemism
of "lease conditions"), high local taxes (called by the
euphemism of "rent", which is really a form of local
tax, set at an artificially high level, due to having
no principled limits on the power of local government),
etc.

As a result, the LP's and RLC's opposition to
economic liberty promotes poverty and oligarchy:

Besides endorsing violations of civil liberties and
economic liberty at the level of local government, the
LP and RLC also endorse gross violations of freedom of
speech at the local, state, and national level, because
they endorse concentrated control of the TV and radio
airwaves, which are a natural resource like land, not
produced by human beings.

Such concentrated control of TV and radio leads to
control over the information that citizens are exposed
to, which affects every political issue, including every
civil liberties issue and every economic issue.
Because the LP's and RLC's views are contradictory on
*every* civil liberties issue, and *every* economic
issue, it makes no sense for Jeffersonian Democrats to
ally themselves with the LP or RLC, unless or until the
LP or RLC start taking a libertarian stand in favor
of civil liberties and economic liberty,
|
So, the fundamental question about legitimate property
rights in land and natural resources affects *every*
civil liberties issue, and *every* economic liberty
issue. That basic question of legitimate property rights is
not about advocating land taxes as a long-range
solution- after all, Thomas Paine's approach does not
involve any use of taxes at all, and neither does
Benjamin Tucker's. A land tax should be seen as a
transition measure, moving toward a solution closer
to that of Paine, Tucker, or John Stuart Mill.
The most important question for libertarians is about
addressing the fundamental issue of legitimate property
rights, which affects *every* issue of civil liberties
and economic liberty.

So, the DFC chooses to keep a distance from the LP and
RLC, unless and until they become libertarian in their
views on civil liberties and economic liberty.

Mike O'Mara