It's hard to dislike the ideals of the (big L) Libertarians. They line up with my common-sense notions on the decriminalization of victimless crimes such as drug use and prostitution (which are indefensible positions). They talk a good line about a statement of principles, and that's certainly not a bad thing to have. Their ideas of a near-anarcho-type government are initially appealing, and the mythical Great Man of capitalism is admirable, if a bit hard to find in the real world.
But I am not a Libertarian, and I disagree with many pieces of their platform. For instance:
"No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."
This is nonsense. We should therefore allow the atrocities in Darfur, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia. We should allow millions to be tortured, raped, and killed because of a desire for isolationism. Allowing the horrible deaths of untold numbers of people in the name of "an individual's right to make choices in life" is a hateful concept. Those people are no less deserving of protection of their lives than those living within our borders.
"We ... oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology."
This is an ignorant idea. Without government arbitration, the wireless spectrum would be useless. Innovation would be stifled, and most of the telecom industry we now have could not exist. Minimally, pieces of spectrum would need to be auctioned and piracy of these punishable. Whether this punishment came as a result of civil trial rather than criminal is an idea worth exploring, as long as justice was expedient.
"We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion."
Religion is a chief cause of child abuse in this country. It is reasonable that we, as a state, require immunization in children to prevent them from spreading disease (which harms citizens' lives). Just because your phony religion says medicine is evil doesn't mean the government should not override this hideous belief.
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
There is a serious flaw here. Medical ethics go out the window with this decree. Should an ER doctor not be legally obligated to distribute the morning-after-pill or perform an abortion if it is medically the right thing to do? Shall we allow doctors to de facto force their religious nonsense onto poor women?
"A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner."
This is true, but meaningless. No system in which government acts as arbiter will be free from intervention, and no system in which there is intervention is a free and competitive system. If government is involved at all, then individuals can play the system to their advantage. By adhering to this principle, such actions would not be preventable. Moreover, this prohibits arguably the two most important parts of our market system: anti-trust legislation and insider trading.
"We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services."
So, we should allow the sale of "medicine" by those who are actually selling remedies to uninformed people---remedies that ultimately kill them because they do not seek real medical attention? Again, medical ethics is cast aside. It is no wonder that many Libertarians are also uninformed users of alternative medicine.
"Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."
No, they do not. This is evident from our extreme tardiness in even beginning to solve the problem of global warming. The party makes a scientific claim here: that if you have a market then the market will account for things like global warming. If even one case of this not happening is found, the statement is wrong. And it is very wrong here.
"We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution."
This is silly. Minimally, the government has to maintain a vast court system and military. Who cares whether it's an income tax or a consumption tax? It must be collected in some way. Any other discussion is not a "principle" but a policy matter.
"We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item."
You may favor this, but this kind of system has been tried before, and it did not work. Again, you are tacitly making a claim that this kind of system will work. It does not.
My main problem with all of the policies, though, is that many of them are incompatible with continuous change. Any policy is untenable if a number of other policies must be simultaneously implemented for that policy to work. It's a moot point. It's a moot party.