Any Libertarian Party Members Here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by line052

Stats Can 2015 Death and Injury by Alcohol Motor Vehicle
718 total
122 Deaths
596 injuries

Stats Can 2015 Total Murders
604
Cant find a breakdown, but 80% are suicides.

---

[COLOR=#444444]Driving after marijuana use is more common than driving after alcohol use. College and high-school seniors who drove or rode with a driver after alcohol or marijuana use. Among college students who used in the past month, nearly 1 in 3 drove after marijuana use and nearly 1 in 2 rode with a driver who had been using marijuana[COLOR=#444444]3[COLOR=#444444]. Among high-school seniors, in the past 2 weeks, 1 in 8 drove after marijuana use and 1 in 5 rode with a driver who had been using marijuana[COLOR=#444444]4[COLOR=#444444]. The bar chart shows that 7% of college students drove after drinking alcohol and 31% drove after using marijuana; while 16% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol and 45% rode with a driver who used marijuana. Among high-school seniors, 9% drove after drinking alcohol and 12% drove after using marijuana; while 15% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol and 20% rode with a driver who used marijuana.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/drugged-driving

Alcohol and marijuana are not the leading cause of vehicle deaths/accidents anymore. Distracted driving is.
But that's not to say don't work on both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Alcohol and marijuana are not the leading cause of vehicle deaths/accidents anymore. Distracted driving is.
But that's not to say don't work on both.

---

Yep,yep. Penalties for both are still too light. Until we get really nasty with "no recog/no bail/no credit for pre-trial custody/time served" jail time and fine structures that will bankrupt a small nation,we'll never make any headway.

This is true and rising each day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Alcohol and marijuana are not the leading cause of vehicle deaths/accidents anymore. Distracted driving is.
But that's not to say don't work on both.

---

A couple of points:
Libertarians - the plural for Libertarian
Libertarian's - the possessive form (for example, the Libertarian's pot growing operation protected by a couple of Libertarians riding motorcycles without helmets)

Regarding the drug discussion - legalizing drugs would not mean that people would be allowed to endanger others or cause property or bodily destruction. It would change the current paternalistic dynamic between the citizen and the government and transfer the responsibility onto the individual. You drink and drive - you pay for the consequences.

Immigration - that is the most contentious point. If Libertarian Canada with only 36 million would have an open border policy then the entire system would collapse under the weight of uncontrolled third world immigration.

The problem with the libertarian philosophy is practicality. It is a bit utopian and probably doesn't stand a chance of being achieved through a peaceful transition of power.

Lastly, line 052, many true libertarians would be averse to advertising their party affiliation on the internet. Even the pub nights may be too public a forum for them. It seems like you have taken the "red pill". Good luck in the next election.

Haha.
Regarding the drug discussion - legalizing drugs would not mean that people would be allowed to endanger others or cause property or bodily destruction.

Answer: You are correct - but what you do on your own property or by yourself is your business. With the freedom to chose, comes the responsibilities to respect others rights as well.

It would change the current paternalistic dynamic between the citizen and the government and transfer the responsibility onto the individual. You drink and drive - you pay for the consequences.

Answer: So you are saying that your ok with government in control of your individual rights? It is the paternalistic dynamic description that you are using is the true definition of Nanny State. That leads me to believe that you are ok with this set up. Great, I support your free will to choose your lifestyle. Me not so much.

Immigration - that is the most contentious point. If Libertarian Canada with only 36 million would have an open border policy then the entire system would collapse under the weight of uncontrolled third world immigration.

Answer: Never said that, I said the government would not fund any travel or support to come to Canada. The government would conduct security checks of entering/applying at point of departure (country). I said private sponsorship would be the only means of immigration, where the sponsor is solely responsible for the immigrant and not the government. I also said it would contain a timeframe to integrate into Canada, job, income.

On the contrary, I feel your statement is rife with discrimination in the sense you do not wish immigration and seem to fear the masses in your statement. We feel that immigration is needed and must occur, what race or religion is not important, what is important is we stop funding government immigration all together.

The problem with the libertarian philosophy is practicality. It is a bit utopian and probably doesn't stand a chance of being achieved through a peaceful transition of power.

If you follow politics at all, you will see that Maxime Bernie is espousing Libertarian's statements in his bid for Cons Leadership Race. He is speaking directly on the 10 tenets of party policy. SO it does stand a change, if we can get people like you to break free of your government controlled and educated mind. To understand that Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a false and untrue document and I ask you if you have ever tried to exercise those freedoms. I have as a veteran, protesting vets rights on Parliament Hill (and denied due to lack of permit), had our Bull horns seized (city of Ottawa By-Law), told if we gathered in groups of three or more we would be charged with trespass. You see, I believed/brainwashed/educated like you that these were inherent rights, it what defended for 30 years as a soldier, having completed 9 missions and 2 wars. I ate it all up... bringing freedom and democracy to world. To learn...what we don't have it at home, you don't have the right to defend your property, limited self defence rights, no property rights, limited and restricted free speech (lol), limited free assembly. No I think you are the one who is fooled by system.

Lastly, I am not an educated man with a college degree, or university degree. My spelling and grammar is based on MS Word help. So continue to correct away. But I can tell you I am a father, a decent man, a stand up guy, a loyal friend, a loyal husband and veteran who served his country and was injured 3 times doing so. So, if feel the need to correct my spelling or word smithing, please go ahead, it is how I learn.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salmonid

A couple of points:
Libertarians - the plural for Libertarian
Libertarian's - the possessive form (for example, the Libertarian's pot growing operation protected by a couple of Libertarians riding motorcycles without helmets)

Regarding the drug discussion - legalizing drugs would not mean that people would be allowed to endanger others or cause property or bodily destruction. It would change the current paternalistic dynamic between the citizen and the government and transfer the responsibility onto the individual. You drink and drive - you pay for the consequences.

Immigration - that is the most contentious point. If Libertarian Canada with only 36 million would have an open border policy then the entire system would collapse under the weight of uncontrolled third world immigration.

The problem with the libertarian philosophy is practicality. It is a bit utopian and probably doesn't stand a chance of being achieved through a peaceful transition of power.

Lastly, line 052, many true libertarians would be averse to advertising their party affiliation on the internet. Even the pub nights may be too public a forum for them. It seems like you have taken the "red pill". Good luck in the next election.

---

it was interesting and going fine until salmomheed butted in

I was having such a good, educational read.
Please....do continue.

First off line052, good on you. Seems we share many of the same views. I'm glad I'm not alone.

I'm not a member, but I do identify as a libertarian. The platform may need some tweaking, but the general idea is sound enough (in my mind). My issue with joining the party - whether at the provincial or federal level - is the stigma associated with the libertarian movement. As with any group, there are extremists that push the envelope. Libertariansim is often compared to objectivism. If you know who Ayn Rand is, you might be familiar with the philosophy. In either case, the movements don't have much traction in Canada. The best option - for me anyway - is to find a libertarian within another party and support him or her. Maxime Bernier is a good example.

I can agree with you on far left (anarchists) and far right Small c Conservatives. I find it refreshing to listen the far left no government at all, zero taxation points. The best thing it does is give my full left and right of arc for policy. I am dead in the middle and 100% percent with way the party platform is contrived right. The reality is, it will 25 yrs to get to the left, to many programs and ways of life would be affected, by drastic change. SO the main this we will do is tax rates, but it comes with cut backs in Gov workers, mostly high paid middle management (particularly health care), next up would be Hydro. Those are things we can do right away to help people be able to live more. As for MB, there is great debate internally over his using our 10 tenants of policy. I for one am against it and have wrote quite a bit on it in the members forums. Some see it as exposure for the party, myself I say join us and use your media for our. His voting record under Harper, is/was not libertarian in any way shape of form. As for stigma, bring it on. You will either meet people who no matter how you try to debate policy...they will never see past what you are saying and attack you. Then some of those I have had the pleasure to debate have switched parties and joined. The there is people who are like you (and me), people who are open to listen to ideas. Even if they don't sign up or vote, those are refreshing people to speak with. We will have many attack ads thrown our way in the next while and I welcome the challenge. Funny, I have become more tolerant of others views as a libertarian then I was as a Con and prefer to debate policies with the attacks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awndray

First off line052, good on you. Seems we share many of the same views. I'm glad I'm not alone.

I'm not a member, but I do identify as a libertarian. The platform may need some tweaking, but the general idea is sound enough (in my mind). My issue with joining the party - whether at the provincial or federal level - is the stigma associated with the libertarian movement. As with any group, there are extremists that push the envelope. Libertariansim is often compared to objectivism. If you know who Ayn Rand is, you might be familiar with the philosophy. In either case, the movements don't have much traction in Canada. The best option - for me anyway - is to find a libertarian within another party and support him or her. Maxime Bernier is a good example.

---