Platforms: Constitution Party Vs. Libertarian Party

Which party's platform is better?


  • Total voters
    105

Theocrat

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
9,550
After reading both of the platforms from the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, I must say they both have some good positions on the issues from a libertarian perspective as compared to the Republican and Democratic parties. However, I find that the Constitution Party's platform is better for a few reasons (among others):
  1. It quotes the Constitution more times than the Libertarian Party in order to give a background and justification for its positions.
  2. Its platform is more exhaustive and specific than the Libertarian Party's, which is very vague and susceptible to some personal interpretation on some of the issues.
  3. It rightly acknowledges the Christian heritage and legacy of our nation as inculcated by our Founding Fathers upon which many of our republican principles of limited government were founded on.
Anyway, those are my critiques of the two parties as understood by their own published platforms, and undoubtedly, some of you will disagree with me. Therefore, I'd like to open some discussion on your views between these two political parties, based on what's written in their respective platforms, and feel free to take the poll I've posted. If neither party's platform suits you, then post why or post another party which you believe is best.

No matter what our varying views may be, please keep in mind that we're all supporters of Congressman Paul, and we're all interested in the principles of liberty and limited government in some way, shape, or form. As much as you can, try to keep the discussion relevant to the CP and LP platforms, and when it's all said and done, we can learn to agree to disagree while maintaining our unity in the spirit of love, respect, and liberty. Without further ado, I present to you the platforms of the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party:
Flame responsibly! :D
 
Last edited:
Our enemies don't care about political parties; they'll use whatever party they can to push through their agenda.

We'll do good to realize that. Political parties just divide us into fighting factions.
 
Personally I think they are close enough that they (and some other parties) should unite behind one banner. However, if I had to pick, I like the CP's platform, though I disagree with some stuff and much of it I would only implement many others on the state level. I also find the AIDS section a bit unnecessary.
 
Political Parties Are Necessary

Our enemies don't care about political parties; they'll use whatever party they can to push through their agenda.

We'll do good to realize that. Political parties just divide us into fighting factions.

Yes, I understand this. However, I was just interested in others' perspectives on the two parties in general. Let's not forget that political parties are necessary in order to present candidates to the voting public, and typically, voters choose these candidates based on the values the candidates' parties stand for (platforms). Party platforms at least give us a general view of what the candidate basically holds to as political capital in running for office.
 
It's a toss up.
But compared to the two main parties. Well,,,

2574761715_1a8640942b_o.jpg
 
I am familiar with both platforms. While I am a Christian and I resonate with the CP platform more than the LP platform, I am also practical and disbelieve that an exclusive party will get very far. I first jjoined the CP and then I switched to the LP. I'll tell you one thing...until the American People get hip to the false left/right paradigm, nobody will gain any ground. TONES
 
My true wish is that Ron Paul would make the Liberty campaign The Liberty Party. That is the only thing that could unite us. TONES
 
Both parties fail in how they attempt to manipulate the people

The Constitution Party Platform:

Preamble
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and
of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort,
guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and
preserve these United States.

Our founding fathers did not supercede the authority of the King as God's soveriegn authority on earth. What they did instead was isolate King George of England as a tyrant. During the interval in which the King of England was divorced in the Declaration of Independence and later replaced with a new King (the President) in the U.S. Constitution, the people were established scientifically as a mediating power through the use of natural law. This use of natural law established a self evident truth that "all men (every human being) are created equal" while onto the conscience of their human souls they had imprinted indelibly (even greater than an ideal) an unalienable natural right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, while the King still rules the dinner table, the people own the dinner table. When the thirst of the untouchable is quenched at the table, the table is ruled properly by the king; while, when the thirst of the untouchable is neglected, the table is ruled by a tyrant.

So, the mediating power of the people doesn't give them the authority to move the King around to make him do things. At best, the mediating power of the people binds the King and his master class to remain at the same dinner table as the slave class are granted the necessary liberties to come to it.

The power to bind the master class in U.S. history resulted in the taking away of the property of the American Colonists loyal to the British, taking away the wealth of southern plantation owners and the taking away of employees from wealthy Industrialists by establishing them instead in an opposing "New Deal" economics set up by FDR. The Civil Rights Movement was also an American movement which redistributed wealth from a redeveloping master class to a redeveloping slave class.

Our founding fathers substantiated in the people this power as mediators at the national dinner table to regulate the liberties of the great King and of the lowly untouchable.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these
United States of America were founded:
That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable
rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the
pursuit of happiness;
That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose
of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the
individual's unalienable rights;
That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through
the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong
national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government
to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of
the people's rights; and
That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the
Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to
those assigned by the consent of the governed.

The above affirmation violates the scientific principle of natural law. Our founding fathers reduced the greatest sovereign power first to a self evident truth that all men are created equal and second to an unalienable natural right written on the conscience of every human soul regarding Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our founding fathers were standing in the judgement of God when they signed this declaration because they believed any further reduction in the natural law would have reduced them into the presence of Christ Himself.

So, expanding this affirmation beyond the self evident truths and unalienable rights should be considered a serious Spiritual violation.

The Libertarian Party Platform:

& posted
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

Right away this platform does not recognize that the science of natural law was used in the Declaration of Independence and in the resulting U.S. Constitution to define tyranny. Instead, it attempts to establish a political science. Any political science is going to use the lessor corrupt power of tyranny to manipulate the people to a cause rather than rely on the reconsecration of the greater power in the self evident truths and the unalienable natural rights of the people.

Just consider that the people of the United States were not manipulated into becoming citizens through the use of a complex political science; but, rather, its citizens were established as being citizens throught the use of the simple science of natural law. This natural law founded the power of the people by establishing them first on the self evident truths "that all men are created equal" and then second on the unalienable natural rights "to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
 
Last edited:
At the national level, they are practically the same with only a few differences like immigration and trade. Don't worry, if Barr does well in the fall, the LP will go for more conservatives like him. You will see the LP platform change.
 
At the national level, they are practically the same with only a few differences like immigration and trade. Don't worry, if Barr does well in the fall, the LP will go for more conservatives like him. You will see the LP platform change.

Impossible. LIBERTARIAN party. It can't ever turn social con
 
na·ive
–adjective 1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

shut up. look at the name of the party, douchebag. you're just a tool in the tool shed. The word Libertarian in the Libertarian Party is a natural defense against that rubbish

you're naive for writing RP in. write-ins count for nothing.
 
shut up. look at the name of the party, douchebag. you're just a tool in the tool shed. The word Libertarian in the Libertarian Party is a natural defense against that rubbish

you're naive for writing RP in. write-ins count for nothing.

And republicans are no longer republicans, and conservatives no longer conservatives. Just like Christians are no longer Christians, and liberals are no longer liberal... because it's only a name. Names don't make the party, the people in it do. And just like some people ruined the GOP, people will ruin the LP and people will ruin the CP.

That's life, unfortunately.
 
shut up. look at the name of the party, douchebag. you're just a tool in the tool shed. The word Libertarian in the Libertarian Party is a natural defense against that rubbish

you're naive for writing RP in. write-ins count for nothing.

Maybe when you reach puberty we can have a civil discussion :p
 
And republicans are no longer republicans, and conservatives no longer conservatives. Just like Christians are no longer Christians, and liberals are no longer liberal... because it's only a name. Names don't make the party, the people in it do. And just like some people ruined the GOP, people will ruin the LP and people will ruin the CP.

That's life, unfortunately.

You make more sense than, familydog. He never backs up anything. He just tries to insult you as his grand contingent plan to quell dissent. Anyway, true, that's always possible. We go elsewhere, no biggie.
 
Back
Top