On the Record I am neither Demon-critic nor Replug-lie-can. I feel that the reason why people only choose from these two dubious parties is because they just ain't aware that they have choices.
To inform and let you all know that you do have other choices, here are a few alternative parties to pick from Here are Some interesting ones:
For the record I am Libertarian http://www.lp.org/ No I am not voting for Clark, simply because I know that in a two party system like ours 3rd party votes usually end up going to the one you really do not want to get the vote. ***************************************************** 10-18-04, 06:25 PM teeceeum David, it's very highly likely that I will vote Libertarian in this election. I just don't think that either one of the major-party candidates will make much of a difference ultimately.
10-18-04, 09:38 PM Tree Thanks for the links, David. They were interesting.
10-18-04, 10:03 PM jusork The official Nazi Party website is a .com?
10-19-04, 02:23 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by teeceeum: David, it's very highly likely that I will vote Libertarian in this election. I just don't think that either one of the major-party candidates will make much of a difference ultimately.
Ah but if only more people would throw their vote that way. To me it is too much of just throwing your vote away. After all where is the Bush/Libertarian Debates?
10-19-04, 02:23 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Tree: Thanks for the links, David. They were interesting.
Interesting as in "Watching a train wreck" interesting, or interesting as in informative?
10-19-04, 02:25 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by jusork: The official Nazi Party website is a .com?
What did you expect .gov??? Big Grin lol
Yes I think it is a commercial site not an organization. Hopefully this is because they are not organized yet. Wink
10-19-04, 10:41 PM jusork Ah.
10-19-04, 11:20 PM newnickname The Libertarian view on illegal drugs makes sense, but this on mental health is troubling. How do you Libertarian voters feel about it?
"Individuals are forcibly medicated or denied medication, not based on medical need, but based rather on a social agenda as enforced by government." Really?
There are many given drugs who don't need them, and some who never get proper treatment, but that's surely not a 'social agenda' deliberately enforced by government. It's medical error and misdiagnosis - not a conspiracy.
It is possible to argue that mental illness is often defined by vague notions of 'normal', and that poor African Americans (for example) are disproportionately diagnosed 'schizophrenic' by rich white doctors - but again it's not a conspiracy. And certainly not all mental illness is an artificial construct of society. Some people do have disordered thoughts, delusions and hallucinations which are by any standards not a sign of good mental health, others do have mood swings which can lead to suicide or harmfully reckless behaviour. They are, as much as this can be said of anyone, objectively 'ill', and could benefit from treatment whether they realise it themselves or not.
"Medication must be voluntary... ...We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution." Well, nobody should be in an institution. They make you crazy. That's why they're being shut down. (They are being shut down in the US aren't they?). But a person who is mentally ill may not be able to give consent to necessary treatment. Being sweepingly opposed to involuntary treatment is idealogy taken too far. Safeguards and advocacy could always be strengthened (and doctors need to stop prescribing drugs to teenagers having normal teenage troubles), but denying treatment to someone for a serious condition that itself is causing them to say 'no' to the treatment is silly.
And then, for goodness sake, "We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility." A mother with post-partum depression kills her kids, and these guys would send her to the chair? Someone who really believes that another is the devil hits him in terror, and that's treated like an ordinary assault? Someone with a developmental delay which means they don't get 'money' and 'buying' takes candies from a store, and they're prosecuted for theft? Ridiculous and horrible.
The Libertarians strike me as having some good ideas, but tending towards the kind of idealogical extremism that leads to self-evident silliness. The basic idea, of 'government bad, private good' is kind of half-baked, too.
10-20-04, 12:00 AM DorianGreyed In my opinion, much funnier than the Nazi Party having a .com is the Socialist Party having one.
10-20-04, 12:53 AM newnickname The Prohibition Party has a thoughtful article which considers the miracle at the wedding feast. Apparently, "we can be sure that the beverage Jesus made was a refreshing, nonalcoholic grape drink". Imagine the delight of the guests. Smile
10-20-04, 02:17 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: The Libertarian view on illegal drugs makes sense, but http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html on mental health is troubling. How do you Libertarian voters feel about it?
Presently if you tell anyone in the government that you have thoughts of suicide that is just cause to have you placed in a locked down mental ward for 3 days of mandatory observation. If you get exited over it, or insist to be released you can be put in 5 point restraint. If you struggle against the restrained you will be injected with something to calm you down - all over the thought of suicide - no attempt, just thinking about it.
Presently it is possible in most states to involuntarily remand one to the custody of a mental health lock down ward for 3 days, if the patient refuses to take meds or argues the point, another 7 day hold can be put on, if the patient hasn't quieted down by then, well more holds and more holds - in other words it can be (and is used as) a means to imprison a person.
You can't refuse to be put on Thorazine or any of those other chemical lobotomy drugs. Only through the honor system does a patient have rights. It is open to abuse and there are a fair share of horror stories. If you are unfortunate enough to have no family members you could easily end up with a one way ticket to a mental ward for life.
At the Criminal justice level there are those who are getting off rather easily due to the ease of declaring temporary insanity and such.
The program is aimed at getting more justified cases through while the legal wrangling and abuse of the laws are stopped. It is not aimed at taking away the rights of those who truly are in need of medical help. Closing loop holes, forcing the issue to be really examined before remanding a sane person to mental health facility instead of prison.
Presently a person can be subjected to any health care that the law demands. It is a breech of civil liberties to be subjected to mandatory health care if you don't want it based upon the assumption that all people want such treatments. Some states have laws which say that health care can not take place as long as the patient is conscious and able to say no - but as soon as the patient is unconscious or unable to vocalize their "no" the medical teams can do just about anything they want.
This is a social commandment irregardless of the person's personal beliefs, it is an abuse of a person's rights. Note it is aimed at "forced" or involuntary commitment imposed upon patients. Based upon government decisions of what is healthy or not - not based upon the qualified medical opinion of attending doctor(s).
I think one of the Medical folk here can point out other Government mandatory treatment which is not necessarily in line with the health care provider's professional informed opinion of what is medically necessary.
David
10-20-04, 02:42 AM newnickname
quote:...if you tell anyone in the government that you have thoughts of suicide that is just cause to have you placed in a locked down mental ward for 3 days of mandatory observation...
Isn't there some kind of process? In Canada and the UK two doctors would have to agree on what treatment was appropriate, and they'd have to take care to make a reasonable case. 'The government' would have nothing to do with the decision (apart from funding it, and having legislated the process and safeguards.) Mentioning thoughts of suicide would absolutely not be just cause for being locked up in an institution - that's more likely to cause suicide than prevent it, isn't it?
I don't think the 'temporary insanity' plea is much of a problem in the UK or Canada either. I've never heard of 'Government mandatory treatment' - that's a scary idea.
Are things really so different in the US?
10-20-04, 11:43 AM newnickname More loopiness from the Libertarian site...
Education. "Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Compulsory education laws… spawn prison-like schools with many of the problems associated with prisons… ...Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice." There follows a whole lot of stuff about taxation and tax credits, and how private schools' private policies (however discriminatory) are sacred. Again, it seems that if the government runs it, it's like a prison, but if a private business ran a school exactly as a prison, that would be OK.
There is mention of a ban on corporal punishment, which is nice.
The right of a child to a reasonable education apparently doesn't exist. The idea seems to be that private businesses could best run schools - and of course they have the right to refuse to teach any kids for any reasons whatsoever, and to teach those kids that they do accept anything they like, as all government regulations should be abolished.
The Libertarian platform in general seems to put the rights of companies to do business without any interference above everything else. That's extremism; a distorted view of rights that would be unworkable in the real world.
Then there's 'removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children'. Ha. Who, in any reasonable society, is not responsible in some way for the education of children?
It seems to me that if you don't contribute to the schooling of kids in general when you're working, you've no right to be attended by smart young nurses and doctors (for example) when you're a hundred and dependent on care - you could sit in a little room, muttering to yourself, with all the shiny gadgets and status symbols you bought with your saved taxes instead.
10-20-04, 12:48 PM newnickname One more. You’d think libertarianism and slavery were completely incompatible, wouldn’t you? Apparently, it’s not that simple.
This problem arises from the arbitrary decision to make property rights the fundamental right. ”All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of -- or in any manner enjoy -- their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.”www.lp.org This, in itself, is silly, as, if you go back far enough, all property was originally acquired by theft or violence. The strange idea that your body is ‘property’, and that your human rights arise from that, are the problems that lead to the slavery question.
This discussion from ‘The Libertarian Foundation’ outlines the problem.
’Libertarianism stands for maximum individual liberty — and thus against any kind of slavery. Yet libertarianism also stands for self-ownership; and what I own, I have a right to sell. Apparently, then, libertarianism countenances the legitimacy of selling oneself into slavery, and enforcing the slavery contract against those who change their minds. Thus it seems that the ideals of self-ownership and sanctity of contract can come into conflict with the ideal of maximum liberty and the rejection of slavery. How can this conflict be resolved? On this issue, libertarians are divided. Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, maintained that slavery contracts were permissible and indeed enforceable. Since Nozick is the only libertarian most academic philosophers have ever read, many of my colleagues, knowing my libertarian sympathies, assume that I too favor slavery contracts. Yet the idea that there are inalienable rights — that is, rights of which one cannot voluntarily divest oneself — is one of long standing in the classical liberal tradition, from Richard Overton and John Locke in the 17th century to the Declaration of Independence in the 18th; and the doctrine of inalienable rights was taken to rule out slavery contracts. My own view is that we do have inalienable rights, and so that slavery contracts are not legitimate, and should not be permitted, much less enforced, by the laws of a Free Nation. But I need to explain why this should be so, and why I do not think it a departure from the icy-pure libertarianism I cherish to deny people the "freedom" to sell themselves into slavery.’
(‘Sanctity of contract’, wow – religious language to describe business deals.) The Libertarian Party platform clearly condemns involuntary servitude. That leaves a huge loophole. How do you define ‘involuntary’? If I renege on some other contract with you and end up in your debt, which I can only pay off by giving my labor, did I voluntarily land myself in this position, by being muddle-headed enough to borrow from you in the first place? Would the Libertarian Party allow indentured servants to exist again? Or is there some basic human right which trumps the right of property? It seems, according to the Libertarian Party platform, there isn't – I can’t find mention there of any inalienable human right more fundamental than the right to own property.
So, some questions for the libertarians among us:
Is the treatment of mental health so awful in the US that research into it, involuntary treatment of it, and its use as a defence in court should be abolished? In other words, should you behave as if mental illness didn't exist?
Does a child have a right to an education, or do parents and businesses have the right to deny a child the chance to learn how to read, or to glimpse even a little of the wonders of world and accumulated human knowledge?
Does the Libertarian Party agree with those libertarians who say that, as the basic right is to own property and as your own body is property, voluntary servitude is OK, or does it recognize some more fundamental human right and dignity?
'The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.' Given that 50% of all fertilised eggs fail to implant and are naturally aborted, this duty to secure and safeguard the lives of those eggs seems to be an open-ended commitment to a huge amount of spending on medical research and intervention.
There is no real reason to say 'life begins at fertilisation' - it's just an arbitrary point in the continuum that is the creation of a new life, which religious dogmatists like to pick, possibly because they prefer simple black-and-white answers to complex problems, even if those answers are silly.
Given that the party is going to abolish federal income tax, how are they going to pay for that huge new medical effort, and also Star Wars? 'We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.' How stupid. Staggering amounts have been spent on the Ballistic Missile Defence, and it doesn't work. Moreover, if anyone wanted to attack the US with WMD, there is no need to go firing rockets into space. A WMD would much more likely be delivered quietly by ship or plane. Eisenhower first proposed that space be used only for peaceful purposes in 1958. It made sense then, and it makes no sense now for the US to start a one-sided arms race against phantom enemies. Space weapons don't work in the first place, would not make North America any safer if they did, and are mostly a boondoggle keeping defence contractors rich.
We also have 'We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.'answerpool.com
10-20-04, 10:35 PM jusork
quote:Originally posted by DorianGreyed: In my opinion, much funnier than the Nazi Party having a .com is the Socialist Party having one.
Haha, true. And I wonder if the Communist party has a .com, too.
10-21-04, 11:21 AM newnickname The Constitution Party is linked to the American Independent Party. The American Independent Party used to be more, er… independent but "is now merely a state affiliate party of the national Constitution Party. For the past three presidential elections, the AIP simply co-nominated the Constitution Party's Presidential nominee" - according to David's original link.
There’s a ‘history of the AIP’ on their website. It doesn’t mention the racist and paranoid-anti-communist roots of the party. college.hmco.com www.alternet.org
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3988 | Location: Leaving land, heading for the ocean | Registered: 06-03-02
