Did You Know....?

[Kludge]

To Mods : (No, this is not related to "Other Presidential Candidates")/(Please don't split this thread for any reason)

The Libertarian Party has only sixteen-thousand active members.



Did you know you can be an LP member without having to revoke your Republican status?

Simply agree to the LP pledge ("I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.") and pay a mere $25 for a year for all of their subscription goodies.


Officially, you "will receive a customized membership card identifying you as a Libertarian Member along with a full, one-year subscription to LP News, the Libertarian Party's newspaper." But, from my own personal experience, they'll also send you two nifty LP stickers, many mailers regarding LP news (recently they sent a hard copy of the Times article, "Libertarians : The (Not So) Lunatic Fringe"), and your state's LP newsletter (if it exists), not to mention the satisfaction of knowing you're helping advance liberty.



You can subscribe/learn more here : https://www.lp.org/membership


You can also learn about the party's official stances here : http://www.lp.org/issues

And you can buy nifty LP gear/brochures etc. here : http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/

Cheers.

 

[Agent Chameleon]

If it wasn't for their pro-open borders stance I'd consider joining them.

 

[Kade]

If it wasn't for their pro-open borders stance I'd consider joining them.

You know, I'm not at all an expert on the current immigration debate...

What is the reason we should be against open borders?

 

[FrankRep]

If it wasn't for their pro-open borders stance I'd consider joining them.

LP members are all over the board with their stances.

 

[Kludge]

LP members are all over the board with their stances.

Yup. The LP is very diverse, at the LNC I remember overhearing all sorts of discussions of U.S. policy - from the comfort of my home of course


The LP receives a diverse range of candidates too, from liberal Gravel, to purist Ruwart, to conservative Barr - everyone though, agrees the current system is broken and we need to start taking power from the gov't and putting it back in the hands of the people.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You know, I'm not at all an expert on the current immigration debate...

What is the reason we should be against open borders?

The state has no more right to tell you where you can take your body than it does to tell you what you put in your body.

That's the core philosophy anyway.

 

[Kade]

The state has no more right to tell you where you can take your body than it does to tell you what you put in your body.

That's the core philosophy anyway.

Sounds pretty valid to me... so I take it you are pro open-borders?

 

[Agent Chameleon]

You know, I'm not at all an expert on the current immigration debate...

What is the reason we should be against open borders?

I'm personally against open borders because I believe in the sovereignty of this nation and believe that illegal aliens are a threat to that. I also believe a country has every right to control its immigration policies.

I've gone on endlessly about it in the "A Border Fence is not Libertarian" thread. You can debate me there if you want, but I think everything that can be said has been said on both sides.

I'm glad there's diversity in the LP over the issue, but it seems to be that open borders is a part of the actual party platform. Which is fine, I accept that purist libertarianism would have open borders.

Pretty much immigration is the one issue that keeps me from calling myself a libertarian.

W00t labels. ^_^

 

[Kade]

I'm personally against open borders because I believe in the sovereignty of this nation and believe that illegal aliens are a threat to that. I also believe a country has every right to control its immigration policies.

I've gone on endlessly about it in the "A Border Fence is not Libertarian" thread. You can debate me there if you want, but I think everything that can be said has been said on both sides.

I'm glad there's diversity in the LP over the issue, but it seems to be that open borders is a part of the actual party platform. Which is fine, I accept that purist libertarianism would have open borders.

Pretty much immigration is the one issue that keeps me from calling myself a libertarian.

W00t labels. ^_^

I don't take a side because I don't understand both sides well enough...

What does the Constitution say about it?

If California wanted an open border, and Arizona didn't... is that valid?

 

[Fox McCloud]

the problem with open borders is our given system right now--many are coming over to mooch off of our entitlement system and not to authentically work (don't get me wrong, not all do this, but there's a large percentage that do). If we removed the entitlement system, then it wouldn't be nearly as bad (I still think there should be some restrictions, but not totally overbearing), as there would be way way fewer who were coming over to mooch off of us and more that were coming over here to earn an authentic living.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Sounds pretty valid to me... so I take it you are pro open-borders?

In a perfect world, yes.

As things stand now, no.

The new face of warfare is "demographic war", bodies not bullets.

We are currently under attack.

 

[Agent Chameleon]

I don't take a side because I don't understand both sides well enough...

What does the Constitution say about it?

If California wanted an open border, and Arizona didn't... is that valid?

The way I view it is that border enforcement is a part of defense, which is a legitimate function of the federal government, Constitutionally-speaking.

 

[Kade]

The way I view it is that border enforcement is a part of defense, which is a legitimate function of the federal government, Constitutionally-speaking.

So is "general welfare"....

 

[Agent Chameleon]

So is "general welfare"....

Yes that's where we get to the problem of interpretation.

Which is why I think it's good to look at the context of the times to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers, however I understand that going by intentions is also a dangerous road.

Really I think it would be best to have a new Constitution that clearly states the proper function of the federal and state governments. Or at least make it clear enough that politicians can understand it. ;p

Oh well, one can dream, right?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So is "general welfare"....

Most "welfare", as the term is used today, is, in fact, detrimental to the "general welfare".

 

[Kade]

Yes that's where we get to the problem of interpretation.

Which is why I think it's good to look at the context of the times to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers, however I understand that going by intentions is also a dangerous road.

Really I think it would be best to have a new Constitution that clearly states the proper function of the federal and state governments. Or at least make it clear enough that politicians can understand it. ;p

Oh well, one can dream, right?

I too share that opinion... but you are VERY correct when you say "intentions is also a dangerous road."

As a future constitutional lawyer myself, this point is driven in very hard in the legitimate law schools-- 1L.

 

[Kludge]

Night-time Bump.

 

[familydog]

If it wasn't for their pro-open borders stance I'd consider joining them.

This is one of the many reasons why I left the party. Their advocacy of soft borders is unnacceptable.

 

[AutoDas]

I'm glad the LP is for open borders. Once they start sacrificing their libertarian principles like that then what is the point of even voting for a LP candidate?

 

[Agent Chameleon]

I'm glad the LP is for open borders. Once they start sacrificing their libertarian principles like that then what is the point of even voting for a LP candidate?

Very true. I accept the fact that open borders is a libertarian position, which is why I can't call myself one.

Very sad, since that still makes me a conservative even though that then lumps me with warmongers.

w00t labels