Trump 2020

[SubGod22]

Actual immigration reform would go a long way too. There's a misunderstanding (intentional by some) that libertarians want a free for all at the border with no security. That's only true for an extremist fringe. The LP presidential ticket for 2020 did a good job of articulating what I believe most libertarians support when it comes to immigration, and that's more of an Ellis Island system. There's no reason the process should take as long as it currently does, and as expensive as it is. Check people. Verify who they are. Register them and let them in. People wanting to come here to work isn't a bad thing, especially if they have a legal status. Immigrants have done great things for this country and in many cases the offspring of immigrants do exceptionally well. Immigration also becomes less of a burden if we fix the entitlement programs that would deter people from showing up just to live off of the government, which is a minority of cases. But it would allow people to be more comfortable with increased immigration. There are a lot of potential entrepreneurs in that group and hard workers on top of that. Neither R or D seem to actually care about addressing the real problem of immigration.

And speaking of entrepreneurs, we need to on all levels, local/state/federal, stop all of the regulations that make it increasingly difficult for people to start small businesses. This hurts the poorer among us more than anything and limits their options of lifting themselves up.

[wufan]

Conservatives/Republicans seem to embrace corporate welfare which is something libertarians generally dislike. If a business can't survive on its own, it needs to die. Others will rise and fill the gap or better options will present themselves. Government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers.

I'm not 100 on where they stand with green energy and the environment. Libertarians generally believe everything should be on the table but there is a need to find cleaner energy and it needs to be affordable. That's where Dems typically lose a lot of libertarians as they seem to want to kill oil and gas immediately and transition to things that aren't yet proven on a large scale or affordable to the average American. Nuclear energy seems to be highly supported in most libertarian circles. It's relatively cheap and efficient energy with a small amount of waste over long periods and I recall something about technology getting to the point where that waste is somehow reused, or can be, for something. I'd have to go back and look that up as it's been a while. Nuclear power plants are also very safe and contain a lot of safety redundancies in order to be even safer.

Stop supporting the surveillance state and the PATRIOT ACT. Due process should matter. Both parties as a whole keep supporting these things with few objections. There are a number of programs and agencies we generally believe need to be done away with. Audit the Fed. Simplify the tax code, or do away with it. There's a lot of disdain for the income tax in general. I think most libertarians, outside of the more anarchist wing, could support some sort of reasonable consumption tax on things that aren't essentials like food. The government doesn't deserve 30%+ of our income off the top, only to take more in other fees and taxes after the fact. I know this one is harder for most to grasp, but if we did away with a lot of the waste that government shouldn't even be involved in, there wouldn't be a need to keep raising so much money from the citizenry either. But, we generally believe if people have more of their own money, they can spend, save, invest more wisely and be more comfortable and it would actually benefit the economy. But baby steps. I admit this is the one most would find more drastic, but is a big deal to most libertarians.

Off the top of my head, that's all i have at the moment for bigger issues. So yeah, basically support personal freedoms/liberties, smaller government and the Non Aggression Principle and we'd be good. There's obviously some give and take on a number of issues, but these are the basics for most of us.

Sign me up!

[wufan]

Sooo...is not getting back on the gold standard a deal breaker? Libertarians LOVE them some gold standard!

[Shockm]

The Conservatives have to build a coalition that’s worth maintaining. Supporting 2A will keep the base and at least entice libertarians, but that’s not nearly enough.

A hard stance on pro-life will rally the base, but will push away a big chunk of libertarians. Have to soften the stance a little and lean into the “do no harm” principle to get a real look, but even still that’s not going to be enough.

Deregulation brings both groups together, but you’d also have to get your conservative base to stick with you as you legalize drugs, decrease prison sentences, and pull back on foreign military.

Its tough to get through a Republican primary when you shrink the military, are soft on crime, and wushu-washy on abortion.

Libertarians are all over the place with their beliefs. I am too. I don't agree with much of the Establishment policies on Corporate Welfare, including bring in cheap labor and not trying to place blocks on China's policy to wreck our economy. Business sees dollar signs and a huge population to sell to. I see a country who will most likely be a future enemy that is using illegal tactics to gain an economic and military advantage over us. Few of us don't disagree on some things that the coalition is doing. The problem is that the other side is also doing this. Therefore, their move further left. and Biden is moving us farther left.

To me Right to Life isn't just protecting unborn babies, but also protecting our grandparents. Because if Health Care becomes nationwide, the money will have to come from somewhere, and there are factions of the left who already are contemplating medical ethics and using savings vs. life to determine health decisions.

[SubGod22]

Sooo...is not getting back on the gold standard a deal breaker? Libertarians LOVE them some gold standard!

It's still favored, but I don't think it's a deal breaker. More fiscal responsibility is a bigger deal. Government getting out of everything it doesn't belong in is a bigger deal. Taxes are a bigger deal.

[Shockm]

The Conservatives have to build a coalition that’s worth maintaining.
A hard stance on pro-life will rally the base, but will push away a big chunk of libertarians. Have to soften the stance a little and lean into the “do no harm” principle to get a real look, but even still that’s not going to be enough.

So you’re saying that not all Libertarians agree on pro-life. I know that not all Republicans agree on Abortion either. So, where do you come down on the continuum regarding Pro abortion v. free women’s choice to kill their baby even after birth to the other extreme?

I actually always thought that most Libs would agree with me by saying that in the Roe v. Wade casethe Federal Government overstepped because they inserted their own personal opinion upon the Constitution, and there should be no federal law regarding the issue, and left to the States, therefore Constitutional Strict Constructionist Judges should be the goal.

Imo, Republican Federal Judges will never insert their own opinion that no abortions will be allowed in the United States. However, Democrat judges will almost ALWAYS support inserting the abortion issue into the Constitution. Which opinion would more or most Libs support?

[wufan]

So you’re saying that not all Libertarians agree on pro-life. I know that not all Republicans agree on Abortion either. So, where do you come down on the continuum regarding Pro abortion v. free women’s choice to kill their baby even after birth to the other extreme?

I actually always thought that most Libs would agree with me by saying that in the Roe v. Wade casethe Federal Government overstepped because they inserted their own personal opinion upon the Constitution, and there should be no federal law regarding the issue, and left to the States, therefore Constitutional Strict Constructionist Judges should be the goal.

Imo, Republican Federal Judges will never insert their own opinion that no abortions will be allowed in the United States. However, Democrat judges will almost ALWAYS support inserting the abortion issue into the Constitution. Which opinion would more or most Libs support?

So, in this context I’m going to assume “libs” means libertarian and not liberal. If I’m wrong, I apologize.

I don’t identify as libertarian, but I feel like I align with a lot of their ideas. I’m pretty much pro-choice. Ideologically, life begins at conception in my mind. That said, I’m totally okay with preventing life through contraception (as most are). I’m also okay with chemical abortion; or the morning after pill. Things are just ramping up. Things happen, and it seems reasonable to immediately realize a mistake was made.

I also believe that when there is a known medical abnormality with the fetus, that the parents (both) should be able to determine the course of the pregnancy. Finally, I’m open to first trimester abortions for those that didn’t know they were pregnant. I’m against this, but I’m open to it as an issue.

My understanding is that Libertarian orthodoxy is freedom of choice. They also have a “do no harm” ethic. These things are contradictory, so there might be an opportunity to compromise.

Also, I understand that my position is not logically consistent. Consistency requires drawing a boundary at no birth-control. I do the best I can with a difficult ethical question that is not easily consistent across all situations.

[wufan]

So you’re saying that not all Libertarians agree on pro-life. I know that not all Republicans agree on Abortion either. So, where do you come down on the continuum regarding Pro abortion v. free women’s choice to kill their baby even after birth to the other extreme?

I actually always thought that most Libs would agree with me by saying that in the Roe v. Wade casethe Federal Government overstepped because they inserted their own personal opinion upon the Constitution, and there should be no federal law regarding the issue, and left to the States, therefore Constitutional Strict Constructionist Judges should be the goal.

Imo, Republican Federal Judges will never insert their own opinion that no abortions will be allowed in the United States. However, Democrat judges will almost ALWAYS support inserting the abortion issue into the Constitution. Which opinion would more or most Libs support?

One more thing...I would think libertarians would say that the feds AND the state have no say in my body. The role of the fed in this instance is to protect the sanctity of MY BODY from ANY government. Could be wrong on this.

[SubGod22]

Libertarians definitely agree the the Feds shouldn't be involved at all. Some think it should be left to individual states to decide. Some think that's too much. From what I've gathered, most do not support late term abortion. But there's a lot of gray in this issue. But for most libertarians, this also isn't a line in the sand issue either.

[Shockm]

Libertarians definitely agree the the Feds shouldn't be involved at all. Some think it should be left to individual states to decide. Some think that's too much. From what I've gathered, most do not support late term abortion. But there's a lot of gray in this issue. But for most libertarians, this also isn't a line in the sand issue either.

So what do you think, as a Libertarian? Should babies who can live outside the womb be killed if their birth mother (maybe birth vessel is a better term but I digress) gives permission? That’s what most Democrats, some Republicans ( I don’t know any but I would think there are some), and some Libertarians think? Just who does the Constitution apply to and give protection?

[SubGod22]

I've seen very few libertarians support such measures as to allow the death of a viable baby. Most that support abortion will say that if the baby can't live outside of the mother, it's fair game. Personally, I believe life is created at birth. I'm open to drawing a line at a heartbeat, which I believe actually happens pretty early in the process, but that's going off the top of my head and based off of the endless debates on the topic that come up. I do also support exceptions like the very rare cases of rape/incest and such, which I believe accounts for less than 2% of abortions. And of course, if there is a medical necessity of saving the mothers life. I also believe this is absolutely a State issue and DC shouldn't be involved.

I will also say that most libertarians, both pro-choice and pro-life, are in favor of more preventative measures. Education, better access to birth control and such. The last LP candidate touched on this issue by wanting to make access to BC easier. It's my understanding, as a male I don't take any, that a doctor is needed to access. I understand that there could be potential complications for certain people and certain pills, but pharmacists are well aware of these and could just as easily consult to point a person to the proper ones. This would simplify the process and make it cheaper. I have no problem with the morning after pill, which essentially stops a pregnancy before it can really begin.

On the other side of things, adoption needs to be fixed. I understand needing background checks and other forms of verification to take precautions and try to set up a good environment for a child, but the process is generally way to extensive and expensive. I've seen friends go through this process more than once and it's crazy how much they have to pay and how many hoops they have to jump through to qualify. That is going to limit the number of people who can and are willing to adopt. I've heard/seen people comment on how much they would like to adopt but are put off by the process.

I also acknowledge that this is a polarizing subject, but also a subject that isn't actually a do or die policy issue for most Americans. I also believe that you will see no real solution from the Republicrats as they both love using this as an issue to fire up their bases. Those kind of hot button issues are never going away if they believe it guarantees them votes.

[Kung Wu]

Isn't the right to live the most axiomatic and fundamental individual right?

When your heart is beating, you are by-and-large considered by the medical community to be alive. That leaves a lot of grey area up to the point at which the human being's heart starts beating; and leaves contraceptives, the day after pill etc, ON the table. It's here where compromise can easily be found.

[SubGod22]

One would think, but you have people that want to claim viability at the moment is more important and then the more extreme that want to draw the line at whenever the mother decides, which I find to be reckless and I think most pro-choice people do as well.

I've still not looked it up, but I want to say heartbeat is usually around 8 weeks or so. Not stating this as fact, but it's what pops into my head. Is two months an unreasonable timeframe to decide? I know a woman doesn't know immediately, but one would think you're most likely to know before 8 weeks. Maybe I'm ignorant here as I've not gone through this process with anyone.

[Shockm]

[QUOTE=SubGod22;n1276292]I've seen very few libertarians support such measures as to allow the death of a viable baby. Most that support abortion will say that if the baby can't live outside of the mother, it's fair game. Personally, I believe life is created at birth. I'm open to drawing a line at a heartbeat, which I believe actually happens pretty early in the process, but that's going off the top of my head and based off of the endless debates on the topic that come up. I do also support exceptions like the very rare cases of rape/incest and such, which I believe accounts for less than 2% of abortions. And of course, if there is a medical necessity of saving the mothers life. I also believe this is absolutely a State issue and DC shouldn't be involved.[/QUOTE ]

A viable baby is at least at 6 Weeks and sometimes sooner. Many people in favor of abortion (mostly Democrats), want all abortions to be legal up to birth and sometimes afterward. I agree with Kung Wu but am willing to listen to other POV, that aren't extreme. While I still view the baby as important as you or I, I'm willing to listen to Rape/Incest/ and even the Life of the Mother, POV, but the problem in Kansas when we had that law on our books, and other states too, is that Abortionist Doctors on their paperwork, blamed all abortions to help the life of the mother.

I will also say that most libertarians, both pro-choice and pro-life, are in favor of more preventative measures. Education, better access to birth control and such. The last LP candidate touched on this issue by wanting to make access to BC easier. It's my understanding, as a male I don't take any, that a doctor is needed to access. I understand that there could be potential complications for certain people and certain pills, but pharmacists are well aware of these and could just as easily consult to point a person to the proper ones. This would simplify the process and make it cheaper. I have no problem with the morning after pill, which essentially stops a pregnancy before it can really begin.

Preventive measures have been available for years. Our schools teach kids about these things at the early middle school and sometimes into elementary school. Teachers who teach this curriculum inform all kids how to obtain birth control, and Nurses in our schools will help their kids (without parental permission) access to birth control or places to get it. The biggest problem that I have with this process is that the family is kept out of these decisions of 11 year old children. This is all outside the family and parental control. 11-17 year old kids in public schools all have this information and parents often or usually don't know about it.

On the other side of things, adoption needs to be fixed. I understand needing background checks and other forms of verification to take precautions and try to set up a good environment for a child, but the process is generally way to extensive and expensive. I've seen friends go through this process more than once and it's crazy how much they have to pay and how many hoops they have to jump through to qualify. That is going to limit the number of people who can and are willing to adopt. I've heard/seen people comment on how much they would like to adopt but are put off by the process.

Adoption paperwork is a problem but some Christian Republicans that I know want to fix the problem as much as they can and have stepped up to adopt multiple children, even a child of different races, even though some Democrats refer to them as having a "Plantation" mentality. These families have been involved in supporting anti-abortion agencies in money and in deed.

I also acknowledge that this is a polarizing subject, but also a subject that isn't actually a do or die policy issue for most Americans. I also believe that you will see no real solution from the Republicrats as they both love using this as an issue to fire up their bases. Those kind of hot button issues are never going away if they believe it guarantees them votes.

Republicans don't all agree on abortion except that a large majority say it happens way too often and that there need to be some restrictions. Most would agree that parents of minors should be involved, Democrats don't all agree either except that it happens too often. As you admit, Libertarians don't agree either According to the Constitution, We All have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The problem is that babies don't have that right in most states. Children and babies are definitely "the least of these" in our culture, and I hope that more people speak up for those who don't have a voice.

[SubGod22]

Amongst libertarians, the sticking point seems to be where one believes life is life. We all agree that life is precious and oppose killing others. The death penalty is strongly opposed amongst libertarians, mostly because they don't believe the State should have that kind of power over people, and the old adage of if even one innocent person suffers the injustice of being put to death by the State, it is something we shouldn't allow. But it's easy to agree that even the most scummiest of scumbags is alive. The baby topic creates more problems. Many believe it's at conception, others believe heartbeat, some believe when there's a functioning brain/nervous system and yet others believe it's not until birth or being able to survive outside the womb.

That's obviously where things need sorted out amongst all parties. The problem with an open and honest discussion on this topic is that the extremes of either side refuse to even listen to others. But we can't worry about the extremes when it comes to actual solutions that may move us forward on this, or any subject. Too man pro-choice people decry all pro-life people as using religion, even though there are a number of atheist's that are pro-life and use science as their guide to being so. If we really want to make progress on this subject, we need to leave religion out of the discussion. And I say this as a Christian. Pro-llifers will have more success in using the science behind life and the process than they will by quoting scripture. It doesn't invalidate your faith, but using your faith as a weapon against those that disagree does absolutely nothing positive to the issue. But again, until there are representatives in place that can have open and honest discussions about these things, nothing will ever be done.

And for the record, the last few LP candidates for president have been personally pro-life people. The issue with them, and most libertarians, is where government should or should not be involved. It's always dangerous when we allow the government to have too much control over anything. Libertarians tend to take a more cautious approach when it comes to such matters of governmental force or control.