The Libertarian thread

[Rush Limbaugh]

Id like to post the Libertarian stance on a number of issues one at a time and see what the rest of you think about them.

Libertarian Party Program On Crime



Highlights and Summary of
The Libertarian Party's Solution to America's Crime Problem
An approach to criminal justice and crime control that is smart, compassionate and tough. An approach that will make our streets safe again.

America suffers from an epidemic of violence and crime, victimizing one family out of four every year. There is a murder every half hour, a rape every five minutes, and a theft every four seconds.

Despite decades of tough talk, the anti-crime policies of the Republicans and Democrats have clearly failed. The Libertarian Party believes a fresh approach is needed. That's why we're offering this five-point plan for making America's streets safe again:

Step 1. Protect Victims' Rights
Protecting the rights and interests of victims should be the basis of our criminal justice system. Victims should have the right to be present, consulted and heard throughout the prosecution of their case.

In addition, Libertarians would do more than just punish criminals. We would also make them pay restitution to their victims for the damage they've caused, including property loss, medical costs, pain, and suffering. If you are the victim of a crime, the criminal should fully compensate you for your loss.

Step 2. End Prohibition
Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.

Step 3. Get Tough on Real Crime
The Libertarian Party is the party of personal responsibility. We believe that anyone who harms another person should be held responsible for that action. By contrast, the Democrats and Republicans have created a system where criminals can get away with almost anything.

For instance: sentences seldom mean what they say. Fewer than one out of every four violent felons serves more than four years. Libertarians would dramatically reduce the number of these early releases by eliminating their root cause - prison over-crowding.

Since nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of this over-crowding. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts. Early release of violent criminals puts you and your family at risk. It must stop.

Step 4. Protect the Right to Self-Defense
We believe that the private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. Evidence: law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.

In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate). Libertarians would repeal waiting periods, concealed carry laws, and other restrictions that make it difficult for victims to defend themselves, and end the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.

Step 5. Address the Root Causes of Crime
Any society that lets kids grow up dependent on government welfare, attending government schools that fail to teach, and entering an economy where government policy has crushed opportunity, will be a society that breeds criminals. No permanent solution to crime will be found until we address these root causes of crime.

The Libertarian Party would increase employment opportunities by slashing taxes and government red tape. We would also end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness. Most important of all, we would promote low-cost private alternatives to the failed government school system.

Conclusion
The Libertarian Party's anti-crime plan would do what the Democrats and Republicans have not done:

Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.
Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.
Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.
Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.
Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.
This Libertarian program would help make America's streets safe again.

More in depth

Briefing Paper - Libertarian Party Program On Crime

[Ulyaoth]

I'm a libertarian. Converting a few months before the 2004 elections. Was raised Republican, started getting sick of the Republican party and then found out about Libertarians and discovered they were perfectly suited to me.

[trackjacket]

I'm a libertarian. Converting a few months before the 2004 elections. Was raised Republican, started getting sick of the Republican party and then found out about Libertarians and discovered they were perfectly suited to me.

I second that.

Whoa, privatized education debate in here as well? I'd join in, but it sounds time consuming to debate the same issue in two different topics with the same person.

[Last Roman]

while im not a libertarian (somewhat in the opposite direction) their proposals on crime seem very sensible and I would support them.

[Aristophanes]

yay!!! go us!!!

As weak as my understanding of interactions amongst people may be, I still find the libertarian platform the LEAST convoluted and contradictory of any being proposed. Unfortunately, freedom is often a tough sell to people: sure they want it for themselves...sometimes, but they don't want it for anyone else. Not only that, the case for freedom is more complex than any 5, 10, 15, 30, etc... soundbite. That's why falsehoods are so effective in the political arena: they're simplistic[appealing to the simple-minded], fast, and you certainly feel no moral obligation to explain yourself -- that would merely undermine the effect.

My two cents. People want bad government by and large.

[Guderian]

It's nice but unrealistic. I agree with steps 1, 2 and 3. But welfare actually reduces crime and the gun bit seems somewhat like libertarian gun owners trying to use crime as an excuse to lift gun laws, and those stats don't tell the whole story.

[alman9898]

Nice to see there's more than one or two libertarians here

[Rush Limbaugh]

Nice to see there's more than one or two libertarians here

I think you will find a few more popping up here. If only people wuld stop listening to that voting for a third party is a waste of your vote crap. We might actually have a shot.

[Last Roman]

If only people wuld stop listening to that voting for a third party is a waste of your vote crap.

again I agree with you (even though I would vote for a different party). We have more in common than I originally thought

[Francisco Montana]

But welfare actually reduces crime...

Really? I've lived near the projects....I can't say there was any reduction in crime. To the contrary, in fact. Wait, I'm posting in the Mud-Pit...oops. Oh well. My fellow Libertarians were calling!

I think you will find a few more popping up here. If only people wuld stop listening to that voting for a third party is a waste of your vote crap. We might actually have a shot.

I've already said I would agree to a third party as long as a 'run-off' was instituted as to avoid the minority position gaining power as a result of a split vote.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Wait, I'm posting in the Mud-Pit...oops. Oh well. My fellow Libertarians were calling!

You see were popping out of the wood work.

We have more in common than I originally thought

Im vastly misunderstood here. Or should I say misunderestimated?

I keep telling people Im a libertarian but they dont seem to believe me.

[Last Roman]

Really? I've lived near the projects....I can't say there was any reduction in crime. To the contrary, in fact.

I think the welfare program needs some reform, in some way that it is available to those who need it but doesn't create dependency (dont ask me how, I just think up the ideas)

[Rush Limbaugh]

(dont ask me how, I just think up the ideas)

Obviously

Even if you have enough to subsist on sitting around doing nothing all day leads to boredom and mischief. Also it has caused so many single mother homes. Its ruined the core of the black family and is largely the reason along with the war on drugs for so many of them being in jail.

[Trey]

id consider myself the closest to a libertarian. (compared to other patrties)

[Kanaric]

If they made a resonable try for office i would vote for them. They are a party that is the roots on how this country is supposed to be.The only problem is getting a person on this kind of platform to make a real try for office. 3rd parties haven't made a good attempt since Perot and the libs in the republican party are being labeled "neo-liberals" which isn't good as well.

IMO they are the group that we need to run this country, if they were in power i can imagine most things improving quite a bit.

The only thing i never really have seen about the party though is their stance on immigration, specifically illegal immigration. Most of their ideas I agree on but i've never seen what their stance was on this.

[Francisco Montana]

If they made a resonable try for office i would vote for them. They are a party that is the roots on how this country is supposed to be, free. The only problem is getting a person on this kind of platform to make a real try for office. 3rd parties haven't made a good attempt since Perot and the libs in the republican party are being labeled "neo-liberals" which isn't good as well.

IMO they are the group that we need to run this country, if they were in power i can imagine most things improving quite a bit.

The only thing i never really have seen about the party though is their stance on immigration, specifically illegal immigration. Most of their ideas I agree on but i've never seen what their stance was on this.

After watching the majority of the Canadian Parlimentary results come in tonight (Go Torries!) I have to say now more than ever before I think we need a new freakin' system.

With a Parliment you can go from 2 seats to a majority in a matter of a few years. If we had a Parlimentary system here in the US, the Libertarians would perhaps start small, but could build momentum and eventaully control the Government.

I can't believe I'm saying this, trust me.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The only thing i never really have seen about the party though is their stance on immigration, specifically illegal immigration. Most of their ideas I agree on but i've never seen what their stance was on this.

Your wish is my command.

The benefits of open immigration


BY MICHAEL TANNER
America has always been a nation of immigrants. Thomas Jefferson emphasized this basic part of the American heritage, taking note of "the natural right which all men have of relinquishing the country in which birth or other accident may have thrown them, and seeking subsistence and happiness wheresoever they may be able, and hope to find them."

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.
A policy of open immigration will advance the economic well-being of all Americans. All major recent studies of immigrants indicate that they have a high labor force participation, are entrepreneurial, and tend to have specialized skills that allow them to enter under-served markets. Although it is a common misconception that immigrants "take jobs away from native-born Americans," this does not appear to be true. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labor reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that "neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration."

Indeed, most studies show that immigrants actually lead to an increase in the number of jobs available. Immigrants produce jobs in several ways: 1) They expand the demand for goods and services through their own consumption; 2) They bring savings with them that contribute to overall investment and productivity; 3) They are more highly entrepreneurial than native-born Americans and create jobs through the businesses they start; 4) They fill gaps in the low and high ends of the labor markets, producing subsidiary jobs for American workers; 5) Low-wage immigrants may enable threatened American businesses to survive competition from low-wage businesses abroad; and 6) They contribute to increased economic efficiencies through economies of scale.

Confirmation can be seen in a study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway of Ohio University and Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute. They found that states with the highest rates of immigration during the 1980s also had the highest rates of economic growth and lowest rates of unemployment.

Studies also show that not only do immigrants not take jobs away from American workers, they also do not drive down wages. Numerous studies have demonstrated that increased immigration has little or no effect on the wages of most American workers, and may even increase wages at upper income levels.

Contrary to stereotypes, there is no evidence that immigrants come to this country to receive welfare. Indeed, most studies show that immigrants actually use welfare at lower rates than do native-born Americans. For example, a study of welfare recipients in New York City found that only 7.7% of immigrants were receiving welfare compared to 13.3% for the population as a whole. Likewise, a nationwide study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 12.8% of immigrants were receiving welfare benefits, compared to 13.9% of the general population. Some recent studies indicate that the rate of welfare usage may now be equalizing between immigrants and native-born Americans, but, clearly, most immigrants are not on welfare.

The impact of immigrants on taxes is more equivocal. Most immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. However, the majority of immigrant taxes are paid to the federal government, while immigrants tend to use mostly state and local services. This can place a burden on states and localities in high immigration areas.

However, the answer to this problem lies not in cutting off immigration, but in cutting the services that immigrants consume. The right to immigrate does not imply a right to welfare -- or any other government service. Moreover, this is not simply a matter of saving tax money. The Libertarian Party believes that most government welfare programs are destructive to the recipients themselves. Thus, immigrants would actually be better off without access to these programs. As Edward Crane, President of the Cato Institute, has put it:

"Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to government social services, including welfare, Social Security, health care, business subsidies, and the public schools. I would argue, first, that there would be no lack of takers for that proposition. Second, within a generation, we would see those immigrants' children going to better and cheaper schools than the average citizen; there would be less poverty, a better work ethic, and proportionately more entrepreneurs than in the rest of U.S. society; and virtually everyone in that group would have inexpensive high-deductible catastrophic health insurance, while the 'truly needy' would be cared for by an immigrant culture that gave proportionately more to charity."

Finally, any discussion of immigration must include a warning about the threat to civil liberties posed by many of the proposals to limit immigration. Recent legislation to restrict immigration has included calls for a national identity card for all Americans. Senator Diane Feinstein (CA-D) has suggested that such an ID card should contain an individual's photograph, fingerprints, and even retina scans. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has proposed legislation that would require employers to consult a national registry of workers before hiring anyone, effectively giving the U.S. government control over every hiring decision by every business in America.

Other legislation has contained provisions penalizing people who fail to "inform" on people they "suspect" might be illegal immigrants. Such Orwellian nightmares have no place in a free society, but are the natural outgrowth of an obsession with restricting immigration.

You will notice some of their proposals seem a bit extreme and unreasonable at first. But when you put it all together it makes sense and is a comprehenive program unlike other parties. There are no contradictions here.

[Guderian]

I found a great article detailing crime rates and causes. Welfare as explained in the essay seems an unlikely cause of crime, especially higher classification crimes like armerd robbery and murder.

The Debate

There are four theories explaining variation in crime rates: the class distinction theory, the culture of poverty theory, the demographic theory and the welfare theory respectively. The class distinction theory begins with the premise that social recognition of deviance is essential to an understanding of the differences in crime reports (Black). Different metropolitan areas report, and respond to crimes differently. This theory suggests that class distinction as well as the role of both the offender and the complainant contribute to varying crime rates (Black). Crimes, which are considered to be deviant behavior in one city, may not be considered so in another city.
Several factors contribute to the likelihood of a crime being reported. These include the amount of relational distance between the offender and the complainant, the complainant’s role in regard to the officers who are called to report the incident and the class of the complainant (Black). The social standing of the complainant is very important in determining if a crime is reported and further if it is taken seriously by the police. White-collar status seems to have a large impact on the number of crime reports actually filed. According to Black, blue-collar workers report fewer crimes and are less likely to believe that their reports will be taken seriously or lead to any police action.
Another essential component of this theory are the patterns of police behavior in so far as they affect which crimes are reported (Black). There are varying degrees of attention given to different crimes, by the police. Crime reports reflect the preferences of law enforcement officers in respect to which crimes they will report and which ones they
tend to let pass. The class distinction theory suggests that patterns of police behavior directly affect crime rates. This paper will support this assertion to the degree that it supports the idea that law enforcement agencies have varying preferences when it comes to reporting crime in so far as those preferences are shaped by the media.

The second theory is the culture of poverty theory. This theory has been used to explain the incidence of crime for decades. The culture of poverty suggests that crime is related to income and race (Blau & Blau). When controlling for race, many theorists find that income is a key indicator of violence in a given area. What this suggests is that areas that have a larger poor population will have a greater incidence of crime. The United States is well known for its metropolitan ghettos. Canada, in comparison has few to no ghettos. Comparing Canada’s metropolitan areas with those in the United States, there is a much higher crime rate in the latter (Ouimet). Some political scientists suggest that the concentration of the poor in ghetto areas promotes a culture of poverty, which in turn leads to a higher incidence of crime. In effect, this theory suggests that the existence of ghettos generates crime and violence. Therefore, in metropolitan areas with significant ghetto areas, we should expect a higher rate of crime.

The third theory is the demographic theory. This theory suggests that demographic factors are the primary contributors to an area’s crime rate. The theory is based on the idea that demographic factors such as age, sex and race affect criminal behavior (Messner). Men of a certain age and race tend to be over represented in crime statistics, therefore some theorists suggest that there must be a connection between people who are located together spatially and the social structures of the area which lead to a higher crime rate. A metropolitan area, which has deteriorated, will not provide the strong social structures needs to support its citizens. For example, densely populated metropolitan areas, which have a higher population of young African-American males, according to this theory, would have a higher crime rate.

The fourth and final theory, welfare theory, suggests that welfare payments have a direct effect on the crime rates in a given area. In particular, property crime rates seem to be largely affected by welfare payments (Zhang). The theory suggests that individuals who receive certain types of welfare payments have less idle time to spend on illegal activities, and therefore the crime rates in their areas are measurably lower. However, this theory does not show a correlation between other types of crime and welfare payments. Most often the correlation between welfare payments and crime is among crimes of a lower classification, such as property crimes.

Source

I think welfare is used as a scapegoat by many people and institutions in order to cover up issues that are much more harder to fix.

[vizi]

I am a libretarian as well.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The fourth and final theory, welfare theory, suggests that welfare payments have a direct effect on the crime rates in a given area. In particular, property crime rates seem to be largely affected by welfare payments (Zhang).

These stupid studies. Is common sense that people who are busy working for a living will comitt less crime than those sitting around the house all day with nothing but time on their hands. Of course getting a welfare check doesnt make you go out and comitt crimes.

The libertarian stance is that if you want to come to america and work your more than welcome. If you want to come here and have us take care of you hit the road Jack. And no were not going to subsidies you. But that goes for everyone and everything. People did take care of eachother you know before their was government. In fact they did a much better job of it as they knew who they were helping and cared.