America is defined by the Declaration Of Independence, forming a federal government through the US Constitution, with residuals from the Articles Of Confederation, British Common Law, and other forms of argumentation. Without all of these, "In God We Trust" as a Christian nation though all are generally welcome provided that you are civil, it does not make sense to have self-governance in America. Either we recognize what forms our governance, or we will be ignored by the "res publica".

https://www.lp.org/about/ Either most, or no, political organization respects one as a unique and responsible individual. I fail to see the Libertarian Party (l'pee) as the only one, when they can't even recognize that they, too, have a government for their own party yet say that they fail to see government as having either no responsibility or only the responsibility to preventing "force and fraud" against persons. They say they oppose "any government interference" yet expect to be able to run a City Council which must interfere in its jurisdiction as a government to help make sure that a city is able to function for all who live in it. Perhaps we should be focused on if government is good or not before trying to "reduce the size and intrusiveness of government" or before we "cut and eliminate taxes". Maybe those are there for a reason, given that even the Israelites had a tithe of 10% of everything they had back in the days after Moses before Christ came in. Hell, Christ said that everything should be devoted to Christ. Also, mentions of "peaceful, honest people" call me to question "what is peaceful?" and "what is honesty?" given that even Christ, when on this earth, refused to call himself good yet said "God alone is good" while also pointing out that he was God... Yet what, am I supposed to think of myself as "peaceful, honest" if I join the Libertarian Party yet no one else is? Is this merely a country club like most Christian communities? The party "run[s] hundreds of candidates every election cycle" which "rang[es] from City Council to President of the United States" yet are there not hundres of cities, towns, and other municipalities in addition to legislatures and what not before we even get to the federal level? Why is this not thousands? And y'all's been around since 1971? Y'all's seriously think you can compete with the Democrats and Republicans with these low numbers? lmao What even is "libertarian" or "liberty"? How can I trust that you will "give liberty a voice" if I am not aleady doing that, myself? Why should I care about you being the "party of principle"? It doesn't seem like your principles are worth a dime.

https://www.lp.org/libertarian-national-committee/ The Libertarian Party is generally seen as a joke which is why I laugh at them, but it's coming from a place of love. Y'all's have a decent organizational structure. Fix your policies and figure out what you stand for, and surely you can do a decent job and finally effect change. Regardless, be a good joke such that we can laugh together when you finally become a real political party, okay?

Using: https://www.lp.org/issues/taxes/ You pay your taxes because someone had to print the money and also you don't know just how much the government makes your life liveable to the quality of life standard that you expect. NIST makes your peanut butter able to be as cheap as it is by making standard peanut butter that Skippy and other manufacturers use to calibrate their equipment to keep their consumers happy and also to retain that "taste" which you notice as different from other brands. Plus, as a veteran, someone else is now in the military and they should be paid. Social Security is stupid but it should be paid since, well, it was already promised to this generation and every other generation. Instead of paying it with taxes, we should just print the money which we give to grannie. I don't think it is wrong to coerce a criminal with force to stop mugging me. The Libertarian Party is inherently wrong and should have no role in a serious society.

https://www.lp.org/issues/the-economy America is "free enterprise" and not capitalist. Capitalism comes from Marxist thought on communism, given that Marxism is a purely economic conception such that communism is generally non-profit and capitalism is for-profit whereas socialists don't actually do what they say they do (they think they are gods and can be like gods yet then everything collapses over time because they are not gods). No one has the freedom to sell both of their kidneys as goods, services as a hitman, nor the freedom to take their neighbor's life as a sacrifice, dinner, or slave. Most people are retarded, so they don't run their businesses very well; also, most people don't have the strong desire and fortitude to become a billionaire which is why they do not end up as billionaires. It's fine, we generally enjoy our position in life though we do expect that, over time, our lot in life is better than when we started it. Government is also an actor in the free market by both being a consumer of it and also that which protects a nation's boundaries from the free market while keeping the black market from being too disruptive to good order. Markets are always free, the black market will find a way. The issue is, we do not wish to see slaves or people selling both kidneys or also selling their children to be eaten and definitely not having grannie turned into glue like the horses that break a leg (or a hip). Innovation is caused by limitations, given that we try to find a way around those limitations and end up realizing that one way of doing things is better than a different way of doing things. It is a confiscation of property to expect the government to make the "instrument of value" called money which is why taxes are necessary. Also, we should serve that which serves us to keep it around; the government still standardizes peanut butter for companies to calibrate their equipment such that their brand retains the same consistency per jar and also that taste which you prefer over a competitor, for cheap. Without government to allow for the ability to "engage in peaceful and honest trade", we would be engaging in hostile and unjust trade. Actually, what does "honest trade" even mean? There is a "fair price" in philosophy, I believe, yet also there's justice in "getting what you deserve". Truthful trade? What happens if someone commits fraud, who is going to prosecute fraud and also notice or even verify that fraud even occurred? Peace and truth are difficult to obtain without a big stick held by a detached observer. The economy also includes logistics and other things, rather than just making stupid candles that smell like weirdo cellars where people put the lotion on the skin or it gets the whips again yet pretend they do chants to some all-powerful being where monks truly just beat each other over the head with sticks for not sitting right, when there is no right way to sit, and say nothing for years at a time. Though if I were a pilgrim on a rickity boat that made it to a place in Massechusetts and wanted a cigar... Ply mouth, I would grow a tobacco farm and make my own cigars!

https://www.lp.org/issues/civil-liberties/ This is a bit easier to sum up as "what are you talking about?" given that there's all these random things thrown together without real substance. Drug crimes, internet freedom, government surveillance, Fourth Amendment "rights" (Fourth Amendment is a restriction on government, it does not give us rights. The rights we have are called to attention by the Declaration Of Independence), randomly talking about "asset-forfeiture laws", and myriad other things. Randomly thrown together. Americans already have a proper way of discussing about liberty. Why not use that? Why are you trying to re-invent the wheel? This isn't even a solid stance like what the Founding Fathers had. "live in whatever manner they choose" ... what It seems more like an echo chamber of rich kids trying to appeal to everyone, more than it seems a serious attempt at running the government and establishing a vision.

https://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-justice/ Apparently drugs are the true issue that makes our justice system broken. It's not that we have a population of people trying to let criminals go free and also that people don't even know what crimes are any more. Generally, crimes can indeed be seen as "force or fraud" yet insurrection is not necessarily force or fraud, but it would still be seen as a crime by a good state and a bad state, for reasonable reasons. Why are drugs the issue? Also, just how difficult is it to find criminal offenders of rape and murder even if the police had more resources? Cities are easy to hide in; also, there is a lot of places to hide in when you are close to rural or suburb areas on the outskirts of cities. If the logical trail to the criminal does not exist, then how could the police find them whether they had few or little resources? How accurate is the evidence which they have for those crimes, and also how reliable is the evidence? Sure, you have DNA evidence yet how do you know that you got the right DNA of the criminal suspect? Plus, not all "victims" are victims. They could be coming to the police in a lying fashion to go after an ex. They could be manipulating the police. It's just just that a true victim may not be believed, it's also that the police may waste resources on a false victim than a true victim. There's a lot to be considered regarding our criminal justice system. How is it broken if it still works as a system that gives us some idea that people are still prosecuted and that people still serve jail time? The reason why it appears broken isn't that the statistics are showing things, but rather that it isn't a world where we expect crime to occur around us unless we know that we are in gang lands. It is weird to say that the government acts immorally by saying "what is and is not acceptable for people to consume" yet you expect them to tell you that supplements don't work for giving you vitamins, medicines need to be regulated and some only given by pharmacies, and then also expecting the FDA to be ensuring the safety of every single thing that you want to buy and put in your body with marketing saying it will give you a "brain boost" or provide "mental clarity" and other things that are immeasurable. Perhaps it is not the justice system which is broken, but the expectation system.

https://www.lp.org/issues/education/ Apparently Libertarians advocate "free-market" (buzzword) education yet don't like the government, an entity on the free market, being involved in education. So fraud, here, by the "party of principle TM". Also, I don't think the Department Of Education truly has that much power, except through convincing the individual states' Departments Of Education to go with what the Federal one does and wants. Truth is what a true "one-size-fits-all" solution would be. I have no clue why children would have any reasonable choice to make regarding their education, except when they are adults and going into higher education. Yet, even then, higher education is expensive precisely because no one goes there for education but for "benefits" that can only ever be performed by an individual, themselves; as such, universities are held to an impossible standard of providing benefits and, as such, they just take more of your money since you are forcing your way into the highway of hell despite universities wanting to keep you on the pathway to heaven, and they may as well increase their quality of life if they are going to be surrounded by retards like you. Government subsidies also come in such that, well, shouldn't the payer have some say, too? Yet the government isn't supposed to have any claim on education, even if they are helping fund it? Ridiculous. A distant agency can find the general policy of truth for all other agencies more local to children and students and teachers which can be fruitful in lowering costs of education while improving quality of that education. Yet we are being ridiculous and, quite frankly, quite Marxist with the Laws Of Supply and Demand to make "public policy", politics, which doesn't make education better. What principle is here besides "my freedom"? "pro-liberty" yet it's just "do whatever I want" (freedom) instead of "able to do what I ought" (liberty). Ought. Not want. Obligations. I also show off my book, available as a free PDF, at https://www.linktr.ee/hackingcovfefe . Probably better for a self-education guide than wasting money on education as well as wasting your vote and time on the Libertarian Party. Oh, the Government, through the US Navy, has like 300 books on things from music to mail management to electronics and electricity. Try utilizing those more. And, uh, have you ever considered reading the Bible? History, wisdom in proverbs, songs, and all kinds of things like management (of the church) and mediation. Wow. A true libertarian approach is not found in the Libertarian Party, "l' party of l' principle (TM)".

https://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy/ What is "peace" and is that the only consideration for foreign policy? If someone, say the Chinese Communist Party, steals the Libertarian Party's slogan of "l' party l' principle (TM)"... How do you deal with that? Surely, you use the means available of the American government to talk to the Chinese government to settle the dispute over the abuse of your trademark. Is that truly a peaceful world with the United States if your trademark is abused and you are unable to do anything about it? Why does the United States seem to "rel[y] too heavily on our military might in foreign policy"? Perhaps because our enemies have large militaries? Peace through strength, a Reaganesque concept, is true precisely because no one respects the poor servant leader like Jesus Christ or others when they are pointing out flaws in governance, fraud, or abuse through force. That is why America has it's military, which it relies on too little (in my estimation) but can use at a moment's notice which, even if we rely too heavily or too lightly, is still going to scare potential enemies, be them states or terrorists, of American interests. Why do people commit crimes? Because they think they can get away with it, among various reasons. "Nation-building". So this page hasn't been updated since 2015, I guess? Even then, we have successfully nation-built with Europe and Asia though Africa is a bit troublesome (lions are no joke). Oh wow, the Middle East is troublesome, yet Israel is pretty solid as an ally whereas Iran is pretty solid as an enemy to American interests. You also say we lost thousands, of a military with millions for a citizenry of hundreds of millions... Your magnitudes indicate an unserious attempt to appreciate the reality: it was a drop in the bucket, the lives lost or people wounded, compared to the benefits of the millions in the Middle East. It is a troublesome area in an era where most of the Americas are civilized, Europe is completely civilized, Asia is generally all civilized, and Australia doesn't truly exist so let's not bother concerning ourselves with that CIA psyop based out of Oregon. We can do a better job, now, thanks to the efforts of the last two decades; however, we don't need to do it again since we already did it once AND the people can see what the Middle East turns into without American involvement. Chaos. Wars happen regardless of being just or necessary; our enemy has a say in which wars we fight, regardless of if anyone views that war as just or necessary. How is the draft able to be considered slavery when, uh, people generally don't want to die and love skirting obligations yet love more to be free riders of a civilized society that can be attacked and would like to draft its citizenry to assist in defending itself? Ridiculous. Also, we haven't been a conscription military for many decades; most people volunteer. The whole reason of the draft is in cases where the volunteers are lacking and conscription is necessary. Hell, draft women, too, but they don't need to be called up for service like the men. Plus, diplomacy is what constitutes "developing communications among people and finding peaceful resolutions to disagreements". How do you do that without being manipulated by either circumstance or misunderstanding? Especially if you cannot threaten bad deals if you are taken advantage of? Foreign policy is more than military considerations: again, how do you ensure that your property isn't carried off into a foreign country? How do you travel the world without expectation of being assisted in finding an American embassy if something goes wrong on either your travels, sojourns, or working trips overseas? How about merchants transiting the world and bringing trade between countries to consumers? What is this "foreign policy" stance besides worse than what a child could come up with? Lolbertarians. Seriously.

https://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare/ Oh no, government "meddling" (despite paying for a lot of healthcare costs) is preventing new medicines and innovations from coming to market. Yeah, right. There's suddenly going to be new pain killers and new cold medicines, around the corner, if the government stopped being the suspect of a Scooby Doo episode. Who cares if everyone wants "quality" healthcare at an "affordable" price? Do they even know what is quality healthcare? Do they even know what needs healthcare? And what is affordable? If Libertarians believe in "right to try" then how about having a cigarette? I'm sure you will discover a better way to live life and also clear up all the cobwebs in your head, given that nicotine both causes you to pay slightly more attention as well as hijacks the dopamine (pleasure) system such that you will work on useful things instead of whatever you waste your life doing, now. And the hell is Tort Reform going to do if the system is bogged down by illegitimate claims? What are legitimate claims? Maybe start going after doctors for "unnecessary testing and procedures", using the current system, to stop the effects being produced by the claims that have to be processed? Who cares if Libertarians oppose fraud "in all forms", when everyone does? "Each person has the right to make their own medical decisions" is such a silly line. If you want to treat a common cold, yourself, then go ahead. But also, why should you make a medical decision to be seen by a doctor for your cold when you could have just not wasted his time, even if you abided by scheduling negotiations to waste his time? Maybe the issue is not that government is involved, it's that stupidity has proliferated. Make a smarter and wiser citizenry, and you likely will cease to have all of these "problems". Then again, perhaps if people had something better to do with their lives than consume drugs... Things would also work better in this country. I fail to see what you call "meddling" as being true meddling when there shouldn't be numerous drugs needed given how illnesses tend to be ones we have seen in the past and, also, medicine shouldn't be taken like candy. Perhaps the constant use of medicine is causing the need for new medicines, because tested medicines are losing their efficacy due precisely to abuse of prescription of medicine and also people trying to be seen as much as possible by healthcare since, well, they aren't paying for healthcare but their health insurer is. The longest stance on "the issues" and the most convoluted and bloviating one, so far.

https://www.lp.org//issues/gun-ownership/ This stance wasn't actually that bad, especially having just looked at their healthcare stance. Still, I am sure that there could have been more to say about gun ownership than self-defense. There's the foreign policy promotion by having the "right to bear arms" restriction against the government used to promote weapons owned by the population. Help alleviate invasion potential and, also, help show that Americans are used to having methods to defend themselves with ease such that, when abroad, we will use more force to defend ourselves in an unarmed situation due to being used to having guns back at home. Gun ownership also helps people be more serious, in nature. Cleaning guns helps instill discipline since you have the heft of metal in your hands but also are worried about the general functioning of the gun when you finish cleaning it. Training is nice, too, if people are conscientious about it and actually discuss potential situations in a realistic way so as to think about what will actually yield the result of walking away, alive. It's nice that there isn't much on the way of banning guns but I don't think Libertarians would support me having a machine gun as self-defense against bears. This stance was probably the best of the stances given on "the issues". Karate is good for small people. However, people bigger than us do not necessitate being more powerful. We tend to face the most danger from subtler angles of attack than the more brutish forms of attack. Drive-bys occur, gang beatings occur, and so many other ways of brute force are not able to be stopped by a gun. There's also manipulation and coercion that women will fight using, over longer periods of time, and varying levels of pain desired. Still. At least there's something seemingly decent in the Libertarian positions.

https://www.lp.org/issues/war-on-drugs/ Since I did the Criminal Justice System stance video, there's not too much more to say regarding the "War On Drugs". I fail to see immorality. At least the police have something to do. Don't do drugs. You can't complain about your low-quality cocaine to proper legal authorities thanks to the War On Drugs but like, maybe just don't do cocaine. People tend to do whatever they want. As such, I don't particularly see the government as being immoral if they have a particular stance on things. Perhaps the government should have that power stripped away from them and, if that is the case that they have power they shouldn't be allowed to have, perhaps the resolution is going deeper than letting people use drugs. As in, ya know, rethinking how the government operates and trying to bring us back in line with how the Founding Fathers created the country. People desire high quality medicine which the FDA helps regulate yet, when it comes to drugs, they are annoyed when no one wants it sold. Plus, they want to then say it is immoral for the government to have a stance on behalf of the citizenry to regulate substances. Who is actually relying on the government to regulate your substance abuse? The "government"? Or people who truly care for you (or maybe don't care for you and just want to restrict you for no seemingly good reason)? Maybe get the citizenry to stop doing guns or go for the "riches" of selling drugs and, ya know, the War On Drugs wouldn't be needed anymore due to having won it.

https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/ Generally everyone can agree with this yet, also, what is "peaceful" regarding a person? Is that what matters for citizenship? It's find for tourists, yet not for workers since we want workers to be useful. Does their being in the country have any net positive or net negative effect? Is "peaceful" the most important issue regarding a potential immigrant? There is not really any principles here except for some fallacy evident in calling illegal immigrants as "undocumented" and then claiming not to support calling them criminals when they broke immigration law yet to be a criminal literally means that you broke the law. So illegal immigrants are illegal because they are criminals. Immigration also involves standardization of credentials regarding "advanced" degrees (some countries are far better than us in degree accredidation yet some are not; also, not everything has a neat credential attached to it that holds weight of significance). Not exactly sure what kinds of immigration we are talking about, it's just like "hey let's have immigration and some how we will be better on the policy making so, uh, elect us!". A lot of things we would want immigration procedures to do are not as easy as saying we don't want to. How would you know if someone is violent unless they seriously try to get into the country, through the immigration process (why wouldn't they try to come "undocumented" in such a case?), and we have access to see that we shouldn't take them in? They would be stopped by the visa process in-advance. Hell, that may be why the immigration system is "complex" and appears "broken": we are trying to figure out if a person should or should not be allowed to be able to immigrate here. Perhaps what we need is to let people come as tourists, kick them out if they overstay their visas more often (or visa-less entry as Americans can do through much of the world), and see if they really would be a good fit in this country. Do they really need to come here to work? Maybe we can get companies to have workers come over on a more scheduled basis or something, which will be able to meet the government's desire to protect national security which is why we have the government at the federal level. Is the issue with immigration truly on our side? Or is it the 180 other countries in the world that our government has foreign policy regarding, including diplomacy, so as to allow for citizens to transfer between countries? Also, maybe we want the immigrants but the country they are leaving don't want them to immigrate! What are the real issues with immigration? I fail to see that it's because we are being "mean" regarding immigrants. Christ, the Church, instructs us to care for the stranger, as well as orphans and widows. If someone ends up here, they could be a stranger. But we also make them cease being a stranger by having to come here with a passport or visa already worked out, beforehand, such that it is easier on the stranger when they come here. They aren't strangers, though, anymore if we have an idea of who they are thanks to the immigration system... Maybe that's the point...