Question for Libertarians

[Non_Comformist]

I read over the Libertarian platform and as a conservative it obviously appeale to me. I do hover have some questions that perhaps those here who know about the party and its positions could answer.


#1. How would a Libertarian president have responded to the attack on 9/11

#2. If a Libertarian President new for that country openly hostile to the US was attempting to or had acquired the materials to make nuclear weapons and said country would assist terrorist groups in attacking the US would a Libertarian president take preemptive military actions?

#3 How do Libertarian's feel about crack?

#4 How would a Libertarian president react to a country which imposing tariff's on US goods sold within its borders?

#5 If population A of country X decided to terminate the existance of population B also within country x, what role would the US take under a Libertarian candidate.

#6 If all the nations of the middle east allied themselves inorder to destroy Isreal, what role would the US take under a Libertarian candidate.

I understand that this requires some guess work and that each candidate is different but please if you are more familar with the Libertarian party than I, make your best attempt.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
#3 How do Libertarian's feel about crack?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean in regard to drug prohibition. It should be legalized like any other drug. Why shouldn't it be?

The question you might want to ask the major party candidates is: "Do you support drug prohibition because it finances domestic criminals, or because it finances foreign criminals including terrorists and corrupt regimes?"

natedogg

[Non_Comformist]

My question was more to determine whether or not there was any distinction between current illegal drugs? Does this mean that any substance that can be created should be able to be sold regardless of harmful it may be? If a company developed a drug that was 100% addictive after 1 use, could they then give it away for a month and then market and sell it to the now captive audience? Regardless of health affects?

This is not meant to attack the your beliefs but out of general interest. I have in many way become more and more dissatisfied with the Republican party.

[TomCollins]

1) The defense of the American people should be the top (and only) function of the Government. Protecting from external and internal forces are included. A strong swift response to those who caused the harm along with pre-emptive strikes upon any groups/nations who are planning attacks are not off the table. There is some debate in the LP about the Iraq part of this, but for the most part, especially now, it is clear Iraq was not a threat in any near time, although that does not mean it would not have been without being under tight watch.

2) It is tough to judge intent, but most libs would say if you can prove intent, then its very viable.

3) Prohibition never works. It didn't work for Al Capone, and it isn't working for today. However, I would not be against any law that would involve people being intoxicated in public. If you want to ruin your life by smoking crack all day, go for it. But the line can easily be drawn where you put others in risk. We serve intoxicants all over this country. We no longer have bootleggers and gangsters peddling alcohol. By going after those who are a danger to society (drunk drivers, etc...), society is still protected. But even so, the goal of governmetn should be to protect people from others, not from themselves.

4) My personal response is a tit-for-tat response. It would also be done with the understanding that a nearly-free trade would be offered to any country who would do the same. I say nearly free because I would still have a very small tariff with the purpose of paying for administrative work and to raise a small amount of revenue. And I mean very small.


5) We should retaliate only if this involves a threat to ourselves. Entangling alliances were warned against by George W (and I don't mean Bush) as a threat. However, if some leader takes charge of a country and is set on world, it becomes the governments responsibility to defend its citizens. We are not the world police.


6) Sit back and watch. The responsibility to protect Israeli citizens is that of the Israeli government. I would not expect another country to bail us out.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm a long-time LP member, despite the fact that I think they're a bit too isolationist for my taste.

1) By hunting down those responsible. Not by creating another big-government program. There was precisely zero need for a "Department of Homeland Security." Shore up the CIA & FBI.

2) A Libertarian would ask Congress to pass down a declaration of war. Under no circumstances would he wage war without one.

3) Same as we feel about alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. Legalize it. What a person wants to put into his own body is none of the government's business. Stopping the "War on Drugs" would eliminate a majority of the gun violence in the US.

4) There are no such thing as "US Goods." Deciding what to do about tariffs would be up to the affected corporations.

5) Not our business.

6) Allow US citizens to contribute what they want, and allow US businesses to sell Israel arms. BTW - all the nations in the middle east are already allied with the express purpose of destroying Israel. They have been for 56 years.

[TomCollins]

Kurn, I respect your opinion on these issues, but I am a bit confused about what corporations could do to defend against tariffs. If you said they are SOL, thats one thing, but they are at the mercy of other governments.

Here is how I understand the question. France decides to tax all US imports at 10%. Should we allow French goods to pass into the US without this tax?

Seems more like a foreign policy issue than a corporation issue.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
My question was more to determine whether or not there was any distinction between current illegal drugs? Does this mean that any substance that can be created should be able to be sold regardless of harmful it may be? If a company developed a drug that was 100% addictive after 1 use, could they then give it away for a month and then market and sell it to the now captive audience? Regardless of health affects?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, yes. If you want to take this drug it's your right to do so, knock yourself out.

The idea is that it should not be the government who decides for you. It's a dangerous precedent to let them decide what you can and can't do for your own good.

If I want to drink myself to death, the government can't stop me. Why should it be different for any other drug?

natedogg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Sorry about the delay. I was out of town on business.

To clarify. My answers were not necessarily *my* opinions, but my answer to your question about how an LP President might handle certain situations.

The tariff issue is complex. If France were taxing US-based Corporations at 10%, the company inquestion would have to determine how much that tax impacted their bottom line. They could simply raise the price of goods shipped to France to compensate.

The biggest issue I have with the LP's approach to foreign policy is that they downplay the effect of other countries not behaving in a liberty-friendly way.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry about the delay. I was out of town on business.

To clarify. My answers were not necessarily *my* opinions, but my answer to your question about how an LP President might handle certain situations.

The tariff issue is complex. If France were taxing US-based Corporations at 10%, the company inquestion would have to determine how much that tax impacted their bottom line. They could simply raise the price of goods shipped to France to compensate.


[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth can the company compensate. Say for instance that without the tariff in effect the company has a price P for their goods that produces a maximum profit. With the 10 percent tariff added on their sales will go down as will their profit. Raising the price of their goods shipped to that country will just further reduce the demand for their products and will in no way help them compensate.

[MMMMMM]

Well, true...though the standard government response of imposing counter-tariffs does not compensate either, in the manner you are addressing.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, true...though the standard government response of imposing counter-tariffs does not compensate either, in the manner you are addressing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a few cases it does though. Suppose you had Company A which was an american company, and company B from the country in question, and that these two companies are in direct competition with each other. Suppose that the tariff imposed by the country in question causes Company A to lose 30 percent of their business to company B. If the US enacted a tariff in response that caused company B to lose a corresponding amount of their business in the US to company A. This would have compensated company A. While it is hard to make this work that perfectly in practice, what it does is serve as somewhat of a deterrent to other countries not to put tariffs on our goods if they would want to not have tariffs on the goods their companies sell in the U.S.