LPedia

Document:Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Platform 2016: Difference between revisions

Document Discussion

Document:Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Platform 2016 (view source)

Revision as of 13:04, 17 September 2019

39 bytes removed ,  17 September 2019
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 38: Line 38:
Anti-discrimination laws that regulate or prohibit private behavior create the same problems and violate the same inherent rights. We condemn private discrimination as irrational and repugnant; however, we support the abolition of all laws that attempt to limit or ban it.
Anti-discrimination laws that regulate or prohibit private behavior create the same problems and violate the same inherent rights. We condemn private discrimination as irrational and repugnant; however, we support the abolition of all laws that attempt to limit or ban it.


The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate -- for any reasons whatsoever, for exercise of these rights depend upon mutual consent. Individuals and private organizations, including businesses, retain their rights to set whatever standards of association and terms of voluntary interaction they deem appropriate, and other individuals and private businesses are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions.
The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate -- for any reasons whatsoever, for exercise of these rights depend upon mutual consent. Individuals and private organizations, including businesses, retain their rights to set whatever standards of association and terms of voluntary interaction they deem appropriate, and other individuals and private businesses are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions.


===3. Freedom of Communications===
===3. Freedom of Communications===
Line 110: Line 110:
f. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling;
f. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling;


g. the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) that punish peaceful behavior — including conspiracy to commit acts such as sale of sexually explicit material and non-violent anti-abortion protests — by freezing and/or seizing assets of the accused or convicted; and
g. the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) that punish peaceful behavior -- including conspiracy to commit acts such as sale of sexually explicit material and non-violent anti-abortion protests — by freezing and/or seizing assets of the accused or convicted; and


h. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individuals to their own lives.
h. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individuals to their own lives.
Line 128: Line 128:
The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by any government. Governments should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the express consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, medical records, legal records, employment records, and the like should not be open to review without the express consent of all parties involved in those actions.
The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by any government. Governments should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the express consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, medical records, legal records, employment records, and the like should not be open to review without the express consent of all parties involved in those actions.


We support the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties. We also oppose and call for the abolition of police roadblocks aimed at randomly, and without probable cause, testing drivers for intoxicants, police practices to stop mass transit vehicles and search passengers without probable cause, and Terry stops (also called “stop-and-frisk”).
We support the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties. We also oppose and call for the abolition of police roadblocks aimed at randomly, and without probable cause, testing drivers for intoxicants, police practices to stop mass transit vehicles and search passengers without probable cause, and Terry stops (also called "stop-and-frisk").


All federal, state, local, and other government compilations of data should be conducted only with the express consent of the persons from whom the data is sought. To this end, we call for the abolition of the National Security Agency and any other agencies that conduct unwarranted mass surveillance; the abolition of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rubber-stamps secret warrants that can't be challenged; and the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, USA FREEDOM Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage Act, and any other legislation, executive orders, or regulations which authorize violations of rights.
All federal, state, local, and other government compilations of data should be conducted only with the express consent of the persons from whom the data is sought. To this end, we call for the abolition of the National Security Agency and any other agencies that conduct unwarranted mass surveillance; the abolition of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rubber-stamps secret warrants that can't be challenged; and the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, USA FREEDOM Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage Act, and any other legislation, executive orders, or regulations which authorize violations of rights.
Line 271: Line 271:
We seek a return to a free, dynamic market with every possible and desirable crop being produced and sold by as many market participants as possible, using any method that meets with the approval of the buying public that does not spread external harm.
We seek a return to a free, dynamic market with every possible and desirable crop being produced and sold by as many market participants as possible, using any method that meets with the approval of the buying public that does not spread external harm.


Private sector labeling must be allowed to replace government-mandated labeling — consumers will be better served with competitive certification and labels and the ability to reject products whose labeling fails to meet their personal standards.
Private sector labeling must be allowed to replace government-mandated labeling; consumers will be better served with competitive certification and labels and the ability to reject products whose labeling fails to meet their personal standards.


Make private individuals or corporations bear full responsibility for damages they inflict on their neighbors with unwanted externalities including pesticides, herbicides, and genetic modifications.
Make private individuals or corporations bear full responsibility for damages they inflict on their neighbors with unwanted externalities including pesticides, herbicides, and genetic modifications.


===3. Pollution===
===3. Pollution===
Pollution of air, water, and land violates the rights of individuals to their lives and property . We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water and a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by pollution. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Current government measures concerned with pollution often bypass court proceedings, without concern for restitution to the victims of pollution or the rights of the accused. Governments have been among the worst polluters due to the fact that they are seldom held liable. This will change, and governments will be held liable like any private person or corporation.
Pollution of air, water, and land violates the rights of individuals to their lives and property. We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water and a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by pollution. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Current government measures concerned with pollution often bypass court proceedings, without concern for restitution to the victims of pollution or the rights of the accused. Governments have been among the worst polluters due to the fact that they are seldom held liable. This will change, and governments will be held liable like any private person or corporation.


We support holding property owners fully liable for damages done by their toxic waste. We oppose the creation of governmental funds, backed by the taxing power, to finance toxic waste clean-up.
We support holding property owners fully liable for damages done by their toxic waste. We oppose the creation of governmental funds, backed by the taxing power, to finance toxic waste clean-up.
Line 287: Line 287:
We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation — including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission — and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms. We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, passenger rail, and all public roads.
We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation — including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission — and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms. We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, passenger rail, and all public roads.


We advocate an immediate end to government regulation of private transit organizations and to government favors to the transportation industry. In particular, we support the immediate repeal of all laws restricting and regulating transit competition, such as the granting of taxicab and bus monopolies and the regulation or prohibition of ride-share services.We call for the repeal of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 which restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to US-built and flagged vessels, and urge immediate deregulation of the trucking industry.
We advocate an immediate end to government regulation of private transit organizations and to government favors to the transportation industry. In particular, we support the immediate repeal of all laws restricting and regulating transit competition, such as the granting of taxicab and bus monopolies and the regulation or prohibition of ride-share services. We call for the repeal of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 which restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to US-built and flagged vessels, and urge immediate deregulation of the trucking industry.


===5. Education===
===5. Education===
Line 461: Line 461:
Electoral systems matter. The predominant use of "winner-take-all" elections in gerrymandered, single-member districts fosters political monopolies and creates a substantial government-imposed barrier to election of non-incumbent political parties and candidates. We call upon legislative bodies to adopt electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state, and local levels, such as proportional voting systems with multi-member districts for legislative elections and ranked choice or approval voting for single winner elections. Further we oppose implementation of the electoral system known as Top Two.
Electoral systems matter. The predominant use of "winner-take-all" elections in gerrymandered, single-member districts fosters political monopolies and creates a substantial government-imposed barrier to election of non-incumbent political parties and candidates. We call upon legislative bodies to adopt electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state, and local levels, such as proportional voting systems with multi-member districts for legislative elections and ranked choice or approval voting for single winner elections. Further we oppose implementation of the electoral system known as Top Two.


Competition in ideas and government policies is important to the electoral process and is a cornerstone of fundamental freedoms. At the national level, The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic national parties for the express purpose of keeping minor party and independent candidates out of debates, intentionally limits participation in the nationally-televised debates to the Democratic and Republican Party nominees. The presidential debates organized by the CPD exert a de facto influence on the outcome of presidential elections, because a presidential candidate who is excluded from presidential debates has virtually zero chance of winning the general presidential election. The right to form a party for the advancement of political goals means little if that party’s nominee can be arbitrarily excluded from debates and denied an equal opportunity to win votes. While we support the abolition of all intrusive election and other laws affecting the operation of private political parties, to the extent that these laws exist, they should not be manipulated to benefit the dominant parties to the exclusion of minority parties or independent candidates and to the ultimate detriment of the voters who are not presented with the range of potential choices. This effectively disenfranchises voters and violates First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, in accordance with current ballot access laws, we call upon all organizations that host debates to have fair and objective debate criteria that should: include all candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names appear on the ballot. Additionally for Presidential debates, candidates should also appear on enough ballots to potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College.
Competition in ideas and government policies is important to the electoral process and is a cornerstone of fundamental freedoms. At the national level, The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic national parties for the express purpose of keeping minor party and independent candidates out of debates, intentionally limits participation in the nationally-televised debates to the Democratic and Republican Party nominees. The presidential debates organized by the CPD exert a de facto influence on the outcome of presidential elections, because a presidential candidate who is excluded from presidential debates has virtually zero chance of winning the general presidential election. The right to form a party for the advancement of political goals means little if that party's nominee can be arbitrarily excluded from debates and denied an equal opportunity to win votes. While we support the abolition of all intrusive election and other laws affecting the operation of private political parties, to the extent that these laws exist, they should not be manipulated to benefit the dominant parties to the exclusion of minority parties or independent candidates and to the ultimate detriment of the voters who are not presented with the range of potential choices. This effectively disenfranchises voters and violates First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, in accordance with current ballot access laws, we call upon all organizations that host debates to have fair and objective debate criteria that should: include all candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names appear on the ballot. Additionally for Presidential debates, candidates should also appear on enough ballots to potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College.


The Australian ballot system, introduced into the United States in the late nineteenth century, is an abridgment of freedom of expression and of voting rights. Under it, the names of all the officially approved candidates are printed in a single government sponsored format and the voter indicates their choice by marking it or by writing in an approved but unlisted candidate's name. We advocate for a strict separation of ballot and state, and call for a return to the previous electoral system where there was no official ballot or candidate approval at all, and therefore no state or federal restriction of access to a "single ballot." Instead, voters submitted their own choices and had the option of using "tickets" or cards printed by candidates or political parties.
The Australian ballot system, introduced into the United States in the late nineteenth century, is an abridgment of freedom of expression and of voting rights. Under it, the names of all the officially approved candidates are printed in a single government sponsored format and the voter indicates their choice by marking it or by writing in an approved but unlisted candidate's name. We advocate for a strict separation of ballot and state, and call for a return to the previous electoral system where there was no official ballot or candidate approval at all, and therefore no state or federal restriction of access to a "single ballot." Instead, voters submitted their own choices and had the option of using "tickets" or cards printed by candidates or political parties.
Retrieved from "https://lpedia.mywikis.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1525033...1525037"