I agree with this- the issue's we face must be vague so the candidate can apply libertarian solutions to the problem. Your right it should not be in detail of all issues some issues are not in a category for a yes or no by the party. Not if we believe in responsible individual freedoms.
Like on the "news" last night first law like it in our country it is now illegal to sell "epherdra" in the state of N.Y. why b/c people don't heed the warning's. Prohibition of another plant species- ma- huang causes the same warnings as "ephedra" that will be next. Then whets next all "herbs"? These are issues we should be stopping- control of what you inhale, exhale, eat, drink they need to leave us alone. I know we have a platform nationally & it is sound now that it has been revised. What about the Gay issue is this too explosive as well? With gays wanting marriages, spousal laws ect....or are these special privileges for another????? I don't really know guy's. I will be back later I need to get a move on....Dana ----- Original Message ----- From: "John A. Lappart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 12:01 PM Subject: [LPCO] Fw: (Abortion) Platform > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John A. Lappart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ralph Shnelvar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: (Abortion) Platform > > > > I don't want to get into another debate about legislation of abortion. > > What I question is the wisdom of having so much detail in the campaigns > > platform. All of this detail restricts a candidate from running a their > > campaign according to their individual opinion, addressing the current > > issues of their immediate race. Abortion is not the best issue to use > as > > an example, it is too loaded, so, for the moment, think of issue X. > This > > issue X, is a problem that faces the voters of the district that candidate > L > > is a candidate. That problem has no clear-cut Libertarian solution, > > however, candidate L has a PRACTICLE solution that is more libertariian > than > > any other, and is one which the voters recognize as being a good solution. > > This position of candidate L wins him the votes of many voter, perhaps he > > even wins the election. Perhaps he doesn't win the election, but by > > presenting a winning idea to the electorate, he causes a good number to > > better understand the libertarian philosophy, and utilize libertarian > > concepts in their analysis of future issues. > > I don't think I am explaining myself well today, so, please stick with > > me for a little longer. I'm trying to deal with the idea of what a > > platform should be, how it is constructed. The form it is in presently > > and Greggs proposal, I believe, is inappropriate for the purpose. That > > purpose is not to identify, in DETAIL, every aspect of what a Libertarian > > should believe, about, every possible issue in the world. It needs to > > reflect more generally libertarian philosophy towards current issues that > > are being addressed. I'm still not satisfied that I am successfully > > expressing, I'll leave it here for now. jal > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ralph Shnelvar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:14 AM > > Subject: Re: (Abortion) Platform > > > > > > > Dear Tim: > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:55:58 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > >What specious bullshit. 40+ Million dead over thirty years, and this is > > the > > > >best you can muster to justify it? > > > > > > Thank you for your cogent response. > > > > > > Let's try again. > > > > > > Question: How many people die by handguns? > > > Answer: Let's make handguns illegal. > > > > > > Question: How many people die from alcohol? > > > Answer: Let's make alcohol illegal. > > > > > > Question: How many people die from marijuana? (Real answer: zero) > > > Answer: Let's make marijuana illegal. > > > > > > Question: How many abortions were there in the 30 years before Roe v. > > Wade? > > > Answer: Depending on who you believe, the numbers are between 100,000 > > > annually (http://www.roevwade.org/predictions.html) and 1,200,000 > annually > > > (http://www.nevergoback.org/campusreversed.PDF). > > > > > > > > > If one believes the high number (I do; remember these were the days > before > > > oral contraception) then laws making abortion illegal will have zero > > effect > > > ... just like laws making marijuana illegal have zero effect other than > to > > > throw people in jail and create a vast state and/or federal bureaucracy. > > > > > > > > > > > > The numbers, though, are irrelevant. The question is: Do you want to > live > > > in a world in which abortion is illegal and the government has taken the > > > steps necessary to make sure that abortion is illegal? > > > > > > Will we make "abortion paraphernalia" illegal? Don't think so? Then > what > > > about marijuana paraphernalia? > > > > > > Is the cost in liberty and economic health worth the intrusion into our > > > privacy because the government wants to track every economic transaction > > > that might involve "illegal drug money" or "illegal money for > terrorists"? > > > > > > How much liberty are you willing to give up to save 30,000,000 babies? > > From > > > my perspective you are willing to trade the lives of 30,000,000 babies > > (and > > > god-knows-how-many-mothers) for 300,000,000 people's liberty. > > > > > > Is life that precious? > > > > > > Ralph > > > > > > >
