The New Fusionism: the ascent of left-libertarianism in the 21st century

[Scam of God]

We stand at the threshold of ideology: the old debate between the New Dealing liberals and the minarchist Right has ceased to be of any informative value or political use. No longer do either the Rooseveltians or the Reaganists offer up a smorgasboard of ideas that is palatable; rather, their respective notions have become quaint, outdated, and utterly lacking in value.

What is required today, for liberty-minded men, is to reacquaint themselves with a very old tradition, one that has been wholly smothered by men of the Right and co-opted for their own gain: that of left-libertarianism. To be sure, there are many different formulations, running a gamut from decentralized (non-State) socialism emerging without the use of coercion or force - possible through the utilization of New Technologies like the 3-D Printer - to anarchocapitalists who wholly reject the basic inhuman and authoritarian nature of social conservatism.

What are some of the essential credos of this new political paradigm? As Reason magazine has it, left-libertarianism

"combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally. Left-libertarianism holds that unappropriated natural resources are either unowned or owned in common, believing that private appropriation is only legitimate if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if private appropriation is taxed to compensate those who are excluded from natural resources. This contrasts with right libertarians who argue for a right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as land."

Accordingly, I resent and reject the lame attempt by conservatives - who, from the time of Edmund Burke, have never been genuinely concerned with opposing the State's encroachments on the liberties of free men and always concerned with the preservation of the social order they themselves have a vested interest in - to amalgamate the true spirit of libertarianism with such social ills as anti-environmentalism or race-reactionism.

Hence I propose a ten-point left-libertarian programme:


1. The left-libertarian, unlike the Marxist, believes it to be the responsibility of the individual to take ownership for that which he himself creates. Likewise, it is the domain of the individual to produce that which he sells. Therefore, the left-libertarian ought to co-opt the growing desktop manufacturing movement and endorse and promote it (through such projects as Fab@home and RepRap), in order to liberate the individual man from consignment to the current, rotting industrial-capitalist order. This movement is the seed that will one day germinate into the New Post-Industrial Economy, as opposed to the ideological swill we have been force-fed every day for the last thirty years. Only a genuinely de-centralized economy can pull us through this crisis. And by relocating the means of production in the individual home, the stress inflicted upon the environment by industrial production will be massively reduced, conserving the existing oil supplies for the transition.

2. Starting immediately, the U.S. Highway System is to be privatized and sold into individual hands. It is hopeful that environmentally-minded co-operations can be formed to buy up the Highway System and gradually replace it with a for-profit system of mass public transportation.

Likewise, any corporation dedicated to the production and implementation of environmentally-sound technologies is to be untaxed.

3. The current merger between the State and the military-industrial complex must be wholly destroyed. The military must be replaced immediately by private military contractors with immanent jurisdiction over the execution of their duties. Likewise, it must be beyond the purvey of the State to engage in acts of torture.

4. The production of marijuana must be made legal, over any religious or ideological objections, so as to ensure the economic solvency of States and regions capable of supporting the plant. For too long thinly-veiled anti-immigrant rhetoric has been used to keep the plant barred; but, like Prohibition eight decades before it, freedom will win out in the end.

5. The  Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) must be dissolved, as must all public unions. Network Neutrality in the 21st century is a direct extension of the individual liberties the State is responsible to protect; any party or parties seeking to abrogate these freedoms must be checked by the State.

6. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation must be dissolved, and control over the affairs of agriculture returned to the private purvey of the family farm.

7. Lands unclaimed for industrial, commercial, or agricultural use must be made available by the Federal government to their reclamation by co-operatives seeking to put that land to industrial, commercial, agricultural, or religious use. Voluntary socialist communes to be legalized.

8. The American borders with Mexico and Canada are to remain open, so as not to violate the liberty of travel of Americans and to ensure that South Americans looking to escape the harsh collectivist policies of many Latin American dictators remain free to start a new life in the Northern hemisphere.

9. Abortion shall be made the purvey of the Several States, to be voted up or down by the inhabitants thereof.

10. The Federal government shall overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and all of the tax incentives to marriage, and permit each religious institution to decide upon its own marriage policy. The States will oblige each religious organization or institution that decision, and recognize those marriages each church, synagogue, mosque, or other institution accepts as valid.

The old Keneysianism that served so well in extricating America from the crisis of the 21st century - whether in the form of State Keneysianism under Roosevelt, Military Keneysianism under Eisenhower, or Supply-side Keneysianism under Reagan - will no longer suffice in this Digital Age; continued reliance on any of them would be a mistake of the first magnitude. We must therefore rethink the American political spectrum, and find new places within it, if we are to survive.

[??????????]

Outside of the Highway system, I pretty much agree with what you say.

[Communists For McCain]

Damn Einzige, this is good.

I know I'm not going to get cool points from other forum members and I am not kissing your ass when I say this but out of everybody here you're definitely the forum member I most identify with.

I occasionally drift toward left libertarianism myself. In the past few days I've been moving back towards it (look at how much lower my economic score is, though that isn't a perfect indicator). I tend to view free market socialism as the greatest possible system for humanity, in other words true social and economic equality can not be achieved by the corrupt and evil state but only through the purity of a free humanity.

[President Marokai]

Oh dear..

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some of these make sense, but some of them are crazy. Number 7 is a crazy.

[Scam of God]

Outside of the Highway system, I pretty much agree with what you say.

The real effort, I think, is to combine 60's values - a blurring of the lines between individualism and the collective in true Dionysian spirit, while still maintaining the integrity of both (many hippies were both individualistic in their life-style and collectivistic in their values) - with an application of 21st century technology.

The counterculture of the era pioneered a very advanced social system, and, once this crisis resolves itself, I strongly suspect that their values will be integrated into the economic system. It's the only way to save ourselves.

[Χahar]

Damn Einzige, this is good.

I know I'm not going to get cool points from other forum members and I am not kissing your ass when I say this but out of everybody here you're definitely the forum member I most identify with.

I occasionally drift toward left libertarianism myself. In the past few days I've been moving back towards it (look at how much lower my economic score is, though that isn't a perfect indicator). I tend to view free market socialism as the greatest possible system for humanity, in other words true social and economic equality can not be achieved by the corrupt and evil state but only through the purity of a free humanity.

If given absolute freedom, will not those who are self-serving corrupt the socialist society to their own ends?

[Scam of God]

Thank you. As for myself, I am finding myself less than ever attracted to the 'free-market' ideology as it has been practiced by Right-Keneysians for the past thirty years: an overemphasis on growth, at the expense of sustainability and practicality.

Do I think these years were necessary, as a course-correction from the New Deal/Great Society ideals of the past? Certainly. Do I think them necessary in the future? Not at all. Reaganism is as irrelevant as Rooseveltianism. The emphasis now must be on personal expropriation of the means of production (desktop manufacturing technology), eco-friendly practices and technology, and small-scale voluntary communalism. This is libertarianism as Thomas Jefferson would have recognized it.

[Scam of God]

Some of these make sense, but some of them are crazy. Number 7 is a crazy.

How so? Communal libertarianism works, and is eco-sustainable.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I agree with this wholeheartedly. I used to identify with right-libertarian ideas, but then I realized that any successful program to neuter the oppressor must consider both economic & social freedoms, without sacrificing one for gain of the other.

[Communists For McCain]

Damn Einzige, this is good.

I know I'm not going to get cool points from other forum members and I am not kissing your ass when I say this but out of everybody here you're definitely the forum member I most identify with.

I occasionally drift toward left libertarianism myself. In the past few days I've been moving back towards it (look at how much lower my economic score is, though that isn't a perfect indicator). I tend to view free market socialism as the greatest possible system for humanity, in other words true social and economic equality can not be achieved by the corrupt and evil state but only through the purity of a free humanity.

If given absolute freedom, will not those who are self-serving corrupt the socialist society to their own ends?

Except that in an absolute free society the thugs of the state, the military industrial complex, is nonexistent. The uninhibited outrage of society would overthrow those who would dare corrupt the system. Power is impossible to gain when all the hierarchies of power have been overthrown.
I'm talking about libertarian socialism, which is a bit more extreme than left libertarianism.

[pbrower2a]

I agree except on the highways; they are a public good whose benefits can't be collected easily. I might turn the expressways into toll roads for heavy vehicles (because of the damage that overloaded vehicles do) but not passenger autos outside the large cities, tollways in urban areas because of the higher costs of maintenance and upgrading. The Interstate Highway system has paid for itself in reduction of the deaths and crippling injuries once more commonplace on inferior highways that they supplanted.

In any event we may still see the technological demise of highway traffic with internal-combustion vehicles.

... In any event we are going to see major changes in the way Americans do business, get educated, get compensated for work, get recreation, and mate.   The attempt to force America back into a model in which most people scrap for a living while a few live like princes (or old-fashioned  aristocrats or Chicago gangsters) is an attempt to bring back a past far worse than what anyone remembers.

[SPC]

I agree with most of this. Not so sure about #5, though.

[Vepres]

1. The left-libertarian, unlike the Marxist, believes it to be the responsibility of the individual to take ownership for that which he himself creates. Likewise, it is the domain of the individual to produce that which he sells. Therefore, the left-libertarian ought to co-opt the growing desktop manufacturing movement and endorse and promote it (through such projects as Fab@home and RepRap), in order to liberate the individual man from consignment to the current, rotting industrial-capitalist order. This movement is the seed that will one day germinate into the New Post-Industrial Economy, as opposed to the ideological swill we have been force-fed every day for the last thirty years. Only a genuinely de-centralized economy can pull us through this crisis. And by relocating the means of production in the individual home, the stress inflicted upon the environment by industrial production will be massively reduced, conserving the existing oil supplies for the transition.

Certainly our economy had become too centralized. However, our current capitalistic system of competition is key to many of the innovations of the late-20th century. The microprocessor, semiconductors, the PC, and many other technological feats. I think this is too individual focused however. These 3d printers, while a very interesting idea, are no doubt expensive to buy and maintain, as well as difficult to use well in my opinion. It would be easier to manufacture products using robotics that are powered by clean energy.

(I may have misinterpreted what you were saying here)

2. Starting immediately, the U.S. Highway System is to be privatized and sold into individual hands. It is hopeful that environmentally-minded co-operations can be formed to buy up the Highway System and gradually replace it with a for-profit system of mass public transportation.

Likewise, any corporation dedicated to the production and implementation of environmentally-sound technologies is to be untaxed.

I can't see a corporation being eco-friendly when it come to a highway system. I believe government is the best avenue for mass transit. Once the infrastructure for, say, high speed rail is built, you may see private companies pop up there.

3. The current merger between the State and the military-industrial complex must be wholly destroyed. The military must be replaced immediately by private military contractors with immanent jurisdiction over the execution of their duties. Likewise, it must be beyond the purvey of the State to engage in acts of torture.

Can't see how that's any better than what we have now. Besides, they will be easier to corrupt than our current military. On torture I agree.

4. The production of marijuana must be made legal, over any religious or ideological objections, so as to ensure the economic solvency of States and regions capable of supporting the plant. For too long thinly-veiled anti-immigrant rhetoric has been used to keep the plant barred; but, like Prohibition eight decades before it, freedom will win out in the end.

Agreed.

5. The  Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) must be dissolved, as must all public unions. Network Neutrality in the 21st century is a direct extension of the individual liberties the State is responsible to protect; any party or parties seeking to abrogate these freedoms must be checked by the State.

Agreed, though I support unions in the private sector.

6. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation must be dissolved, and control over the affairs of agriculture returned to the private purvey of the family farm.

Maybe. It is a good idea in theory, but in practice this could severely harm agricultural regions, especially if no private companies replace the void.

7. Lands unclaimed for industrial, commercial, or agricultural use must be made available by the Federal government to their reclamation by co-operatives seeking to put that land to industrial, commercial, agricultural, or religious use. Voluntary socialist communes to be legalized.

Absolutely not. National parks are extremely important, and I don't want to live in a country devoid of natural wilderness.

Socialist communes, no. In this sense I support right-libertarian thought fused with some liberalism.

8. The American borders with Mexico and Canada are to remain open, so as not to violate the liberty of travel of Americans and to ensure that South Americans looking to escape the harsh collectivist policies of many Latin American dictators remain free to start a new life in the Northern hemisphere.

Hmmm... We should have an easy and open immigration policy, and it should be easy for Canadian and Mexican citizens to cross the border. However, it is not in our security interests to have completely open borders.

9. Abortion shall be made the purvey of the Several States, to be voted up or down by the inhabitants thereof.

This is unfair to poor people who want abortions. I don't see what deferring it to the states does.

10. The Federal government shall overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and all of the tax incentives to marriage, and permit each religious institution to decide upon its own marriage policy. The States will oblige each religious organization or institution that decision, and recognize those marriages each church, synagogue, mosque, or other institution accepts as valid.

Agreed on the defense of marriage act, though tax incentives should remain. Two people are twice as expensive to support.

The old Keneysianism that served so well in extricating America from the crisis of the 21st century - whether in the form of State Keneysianism under Roosevelt, Military Keneysianism under Eisenhower, or Supply-side Keneysianism under Reagan - will no longer suffice in this Digital Age; continued reliance on any of them would be a mistake of the first magnitude. We must therefore rethink the American political spectrum, and find new places within it, if we are to survive.

And why not? You may have more businesses, fewer corporate giants, but the same principles of Keneysian economics still apply, though differently.

I think the digital age won't differ much from the 20th century. Studies have shown that even young people use the internet to supplement their lives, not replacing parts of their lives with it. I think the same will apply on an economic level. We will do business in much the same way we do now, with less centralization, more small businesses, and more efficiency.

[Mint]

1. The left-libertarian, unlike the Marxist, believes it to be the responsibility of the individual to take ownership for that which he himself creates. Likewise, it is the domain of the individual to produce that which he sells. Therefore, the left-libertarian ought to co-opt the growing desktop manufacturing movement and endorse and promote it (through such projects as Fab@home and RepRap), in order to liberate the individual man from consignment to the current, rotting industrial-capitalist order. This movement is the seed that will one day germinate into the New Post-Industrial Economy, as opposed to the ideological swill we have been force-fed every day for the last thirty years. Only a genuinely de-centralized economy can pull us through this crisis. And by relocating the means of production in the individual home, the stress inflicted upon the environment by industrial production will be massively reduced, conserving the existing oil supplies for the transition.

I don't think a post-industrial economy is really viable until we get things like nano-Technology fully off the drawing board. Granted we could easily cut down on a lot of the useless meetings and bureaucracy we have now by encouraging telecommuting, home business, etc. to a much greater extent than we do now. But in the long term we're pretty much forced to have some kind of hierarchy.

2. Starting immediately, the U.S. Highway System is to be privatized and sold into individual hands. It is hopeful that environmentally-minded co-operations can be formed to buy up the Highway System and gradually replace it with a for-profit system of mass public transportation.

Likewise, any corporation dedicated to the production and implementation of environmentally-sound technologies is to be untaxed.

I agree to a large extent. I think right now, inc. The focus of government infrastructure spending should really be building high speed public transportation (bullet trains) and improving a lot of our pipes and water treatment centers. In general we need to move past the car centered society we have now. As I've said before, there are many, many things in our society that are fundamentally unsustainable and this is one of them.

3. The current merger between the State and the military-industrial complex must be wholly destroyed. The military must be replaced immediately by private military contractors with immanent jurisdiction over the execution of their duties. Likewise, it must be beyond the purvey of the State to engage in acts of torture.

I don't see how this offers more accountability even if we could implement it. Certainly Blackwater and the private prisons scandals we've had in this country should show the possibilities for abuse.

4. The production of marijuana must be made legal, over any religious or ideological objections, so as to ensure the economic solvency of States and regions capable of supporting the plant. For too long thinly-veiled anti-immigrant rhetoric has been used to keep the plant barred; but, like Prohibition eight decades before it, freedom will win out in the end.

Agreed.

5. The  Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) must be dissolved, as must all public unions. Network Neutrality in the 21st century is a direct extension of the individual liberties the State is responsible to protect; any party or parties seeking to abrogate these freedoms must be checked by the State.

Agreed.

6. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation must be dissolved, and control over the affairs of agriculture returned to the private purvey of the family farm.

Disagree. Besides the reality that there are essentially no family farms, this would just needlessly increase risk for farmers. I could see eliminating or cutting existing subsidies (though food price increases concern me) but not this.

7. Lands unclaimed for industrial, commercial, or agricultural use must be made available by the Federal government to their reclamation by co-operatives seeking to put that land to industrial, commercial, agricultural, or religious use. Voluntary socialist communes to be legalized.

I don't see any point to this.

8. The American borders with Mexico and Canada are to remain open, so as not to violate the liberty of travel of Americans and to ensure that South Americans looking to escape the harsh collectivist policies of many Latin American dictators remain free to start a new life in the Northern hemisphere.

It depends on what you mean by this. If you're referring to maintaining present levels of legal immigration, I am a bit uneasy given how much of that is unskilled. If you mean opening the flood gates, absolutely not.

9. Abortion shall be made the purvey of the Several States, to be voted up or down by the inhabitants thereof.

I'm unsure as to the validity of Roe, but I think it would be disastrous for society if we  repealed it. As it stands abortion is de-facto illegal in many areas thanks to zoning ordinances.

10. The Federal government shall overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and all of the tax incentives to marriage, and permit each religious institution to decide upon its own marriage policy. The States will oblige each religious organization or institution that decision, and recognize those marriages each church, synagogue, mosque, or other institution accepts as valid.

I think this would be preferable to the current system, but really I don't care much either way as long as 'gay' couples are treated the same as 'straight' couples in similar circumstances.

[Scam of God]

Damn Einzige, this is good.

I know I'm not going to get cool points from other forum members and I am not kissing your ass when I say this but out of everybody here you're definitely the forum member I most identify with.

I occasionally drift toward left libertarianism myself. In the past few days I've been moving back towards it (look at how much lower my economic score is, though that isn't a perfect indicator). I tend to view free market socialism as the greatest possible system for humanity, in other words true social and economic equality can not be achieved by the corrupt and evil state but only through the purity of a free humanity.

If given absolute freedom, will not those who are self-serving corrupt the socialist society to their own ends?

It's only 'socialist' in a very vague sense - in the sense that those who (formerly) worked for others now basically work for themselves, or, more appropriately, have exported a method of production for themselves. But they are responsible for producing and selling their goods.

[Scam of God]

Moreover, it is impossible for the thugs to gain power.

How do they do it? They marry their corporations to the State. Remove the State's ability to reinforce the corporations - the 'corporation' being, in fact, a legally-created entity; I would be happy to jettison the concept altogether - and the jackbooters have nothing to cling to, to reinforce their power.

[Χahar]

Damn Einzige, this is good.

I know I'm not going to get cool points from other forum members and I am not kissing your ass when I say this but out of everybody here you're definitely the forum member I most identify with.

I occasionally drift toward left libertarianism myself. In the past few days I've been moving back towards it (look at how much lower my economic score is, though that isn't a perfect indicator). I tend to view free market socialism as the greatest possible system for humanity, in other words true social and economic equality can not be achieved by the corrupt and evil state but only through the purity of a free humanity.

If given absolute freedom, will not those who are self-serving corrupt the socialist society to their own ends?

Except that in an absolute free society the thugs of the state, the military industrial complex, is nonexistent. The uninhibited outrage of society would overthrow those who would dare corrupt the system. Power is impossible to gain when all the hierarchies of power have been overthrown.
I'm talking about libertarian socialism, which is a bit more extreme than left libertarianism.

I'm not quite sure I understand what a libertarian socialist society would look like; I'm too familiar with SPC's anarcho-capitalism to easily understand any remotely similar ideology.

[paul718]

What are some of the essential credos of this new political paradigm? As Reason magazine has it, left-libertarianism

"combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally. Left-libertarianism holds that unappropriated natural resources are either unowned or owned in common, believing that private appropriation is only legitimate if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if private appropriation is taxed to compensate those who are excluded from natural resources. This contrasts with right libertarians who argue for a right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as land."

While I can appreciate the idea that every individual is entitled to an equal share of natural resources, it would be highly impractical.  All land is not created equal, and has a different value to each person and for each purpose.  As for charging a tax for private appropriation, how is that different from the current system?  The land is owned by the government, for which it will sell to a developer on the open market.  The proceeds then go toward the benefit of the people.  No one is excluded.  If an individual wants to own a natural resource, he can enter the market and buy it.

As for the ten points...

1. The left-libertarian, unlike the Marxist, believes it to be the responsibility of the individual to take ownership for that which he himself creates. Likewise, it is the domain of the individual to produce that which he sells. Therefore, the left-libertarian ought to co-opt the growing desktop manufacturing movement and endorse and promote it (through such projects as Fab@home and RepRap), in order to liberate the individual man from consignment to the current, rotting industrial-capitalist order. This movement is the seed that will one day germinate into the New Post-Industrial Economy, as opposed to the ideological swill we have been force-fed every day for the last thirty years. Only a genuinely de-centralized economy can pull us through this crisis. And by relocating the means of production in the individual home, the stress inflicted upon the environment by industrial production will be massively reduced, conserving the existing oil supplies for the transition.

Again, I don't see how any of this isn't possible in current society.  Every man is fully entitled to pursue any entrepreneurial desires he may have.  If he can develop a new product; or a more efficient/safer/better product, he can take down the largest industrialist...or at least be compensated for his innovation. 

By the way, this 3-D printer is cool.  I remember reading about it when I was in grammar school (like 15 years ago).  Does it only manufacture prototypes, or do they foresee it manufacturing marketable goods?

2. Starting immediately, the U.S. Highway System is to be privatized and sold into individual hands. It is hopeful that environmentally-minded co-operations can be formed to buy up the Highway System and gradually replace it with a for-profit system of mass public transportation.

Likewise, any corporation dedicated to the production and implementation of environmentally-sound technologies is to be untaxed.

Agree.  Though I remaine concerned with how environmental standards can affect American products in the global marketplace.  But I suppose consumers could eventually find their self-interest leading them to buy more environmentally-sound products, which would allay my worries.

3. The current merger between the State and the military-industrial complex must be wholly destroyed. The military must be replaced immediately by private military contractors with immanent jurisdiction over the execution of their duties. Likewise, it must be beyond the purvey of the State to engage in acts of torture.

Disagree.  You and I have argued this before, but I'll reiterate that I believe a standing military is one of the (few) purposes of a government.  It's up to the government, for the sake of efficiency, to buy and build military equipment in an open, competetive market.  If the government fails to do this, the people can voice their opinions at the polls. 

I agree with you regarding torture.

4. The production of marijuana must be made legal, over any religious or ideological objections, so as to ensure the economic solvency of States and regions capable of supporting the plant. For too long thinly-veiled anti-immigrant rhetoric has been used to keep the plant barred; but, like Prohibition eight decades before it, freedom will win out in the end.

Agreed.  I'd even consider taking it a step further and legalize all drugs.  There are laws in place to punish/deter crimes committed while under the influence of drugs -- I don't agree with the current policy behind outlawing their use or possession. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-immigrant rhetoric" being used behind the criminalization of marijuana.

5. The  Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) must be dissolved, as must all public unions. Network Neutrality in the 21st century is a direct extension of the individual liberties the State is responsible to protect; any party or parties seeking to abrogate these freedoms must be checked by the State.

Disagree.  I don't know enough about intellectual property to form an in-depth opinion, but I think the RIAA serves a purpose.  On the other hand, I don't agree with the RIAA suing individuals who download files for private consumption, as (according to the wikipedia article) the amount in damages incurred per download is nominal. 

I also don't know much about "net neutrality".  Instead of researching it, I'm just going to say that I'm in favor of deregulating the internet, so long as IP rights remain protected.   

As for unions...I don't have a problem with their existence.  I just don't want them getting any preferential treatment from the government. 

6. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation must be dissolved, and control over the affairs of agriculture returned to the private purvey of the family farm.

Agree.

7. Lands unclaimed for industrial, commercial, or agricultural use must be made available by the Federal government to their reclamation by co-operatives seeking to put that land to industrial, commercial, agricultural, or religious use. Voluntary socialist communes to be legalized.

Agree.  Protected lands should be privately-owned.  If the purchaser finds a use for the land other than recreation, then so be it.  I love wildlife and want animals to be protected, but I don't think it should be the government's responsibility. 

8. The American borders with Mexico and Canada are to remain open, so as not to violate the liberty of travel of Americans and to ensure that South Americans looking to escape the harsh collectivist policies of many Latin American dictators remain free to start a new life in the Northern hemisphere.

Disagree.  As I've stated before, one of the government's primary responsibilities is to protect the people from foreign invaders.  Controlling our borders is a part of that. 

9. Abortion shall be made the purvey of the Several States, to be voted up or down by the inhabitants thereof.

Leaving it up to the states is a punt, but okay.  I suppose there's no more efficient way to handle such  a divided issue.

10. The Federal government shall overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and all of the tax incentives to marriage, and permit each religious institution to decide upon its own marriage policy. The States will oblige each religious organization or institution that decision, and recognize those marriages each church, synagogue, mosque, or other institution accepts as valid.

Agree.

[Vepres]

1.   The age-old debate over whether the government should be in the business of business  is difficult.  There wasn’t a time where an America or a world comparable to this one was completely devoid of government intervention in business so we can’t say whether it would be different.  Unfortunately, the fact that business has been interfered with by government for so long makes it difficult to pull that away all of a sudden.  Our economy is built on a foundation built by our government.  Sure, we may be able to remove the government foundation but it would just be too difficult and too expensive.  Things would have to change completely and as we know, change is always fiercely resisted by government.  Decentralizing responsibility will take generations.

Government must have some involvement in the private sector. However, it doesn't need to be the base, but more of an umpire.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

1. I agree with the notion of a primarily de-centralized economy. For the most part, things need to be in private hands, though I think the government does have a role. That role should primarily be in the realm of consumer protection. Companies should not be allowed to sell food that is tainted or poisoned, nor should they be allowed to falsely advertise what their product does. Some regulations also need to exist so that consumers are aware of any risks that consuming or buying a product could harm them - I do agree with the warnings on tobacco products for instance, because it lets the consumer make an educated choice.

2. I disagree. I'm not for privatization of roads. Generally you'll see roads become toll roads, which may well end up costing you more than if you were taxed depending on how frequently you use them. There's also other potential issues which I could get into, but I'd rather not. You can dig up my long conversation with SPC a few months back on the subject if you really care to find out the reasons.

Likewise, any corporation dedicated to the production and implementation of environmentally-sound technologies is to be untaxed.

That's a very vague standard. Generally speaking when it comes to the law vagueness is bad.

3. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of putting all military power into the hands of private individuals. It might have worked out fine in the days of militia but modern military considerations are different. Also, if the contractors have full purview over completing their duties you will essentially lack a central command unless one of the contractors has a really huge army. If you want to win wars you need to have a central command to ensure everyone is following strategy.

On the subject of torture, I think it should only be allowed in only the most extreme situations, and even then there should be some sort of consequences - if you aren't willing to make a self-sacrifice for it, the it obviously isn't important enough that you should be able to do it.

4. Totally agree.

5. Dissolving the RIAA may be unconstitutional, what with freedom of association and all that. Same with dissolving unions. For dealing with the RIAA, I think we need massive copyright reform. For unions, I just don't think they should get any special protection by the law.

6. Agree

7. I think you neglected "residential" in your list of claimed types of land, but I'm thinking that's just an oversight. Anywho, this should be on a case by case basis. Some land owned by the government is not anything special and is just unused, so there's not much reason to keep it. However, there are things like national parks and nature reserves that should remain in government hands. These types of lands aren't without benefit being as they are, as they generate a lot of tourism related income for the private sector and many have come to depend on that.

8. Agree, though there should still be an immigration process. It should be less restrictive than now, but you should have to register to become a citizen.

9. Agree

10. Agree on DOMA, though there should be at least some state benefits to marriage, though not necessarily tax related. As far as what should be recognized, I think that should be on an individual basis rather than on the basis of what a religious organization recognizes. There should be a standard two person civil union contract, with options for other types of relationships as well that are non-standard and negotiable.