The Libertine Party. We need some way to distinguish ourselves from those Fiscal-Conservatives-in-disguise mendaciously known as the "Libertarian" Party. Quite simply, we Libertines don't care how any of you so-called depraved people get your jollies. If you want to take dope in your font-lawn while having a debauched gang-bang with 50 hookers in plain sight of your neighbors, then go for it. If it offends them, then I suppose that's too bad. As long as you're on your own property, you're free to behave however you please.
For the sake of preserving social establishment, we shall only mandate three golden rules:
1.) Do not mistreat another.
Your right to swing your fist ends where another man's nose begins. If you physically engage another person with the intention of causing harm, then you will be rehabilitated - or provided you are incapable of reformation, banished from our society altogether.
2.) Do not infringe on another's freedom.
You cannot suppress another's freedom to express themselves, practice their beliefs, etc. - whether on public property, or their private property. There are two logical exceptions: a.) When someone is on another's private property, this person must respect the rules of the property-owner, or leave that property at once; b.) When your "expression" entails causing physical harm to another, holding them captive, or otherwise threatening their life or their freedoms.
3.) Do not encroach on another's personal or private property.
If someone does not want you on their property, does not want your expressions on their property, etc. then don't bring them there. Personal rights must function in a set of tiers, with private property rescinding all else. It doesn't matter if some mall-owner wants to banish you from the premises because of your religious beliefs, nationality, etc. - that's their prerogative as a private property-owner. You have equal prerogative to banish them from your property for any reason; but neither of you must necessarily retain the freedom to set foot on any private property you please. To grant such freedom would pose a paradox: Can anyone do whatever they want, on any piece of property; or can I tell someone to leave my property when they bother me?
On the other hand, I'm willing to hear proposals for the abolishment of private property, (not personal property; like physical objects that you own - that's a separate idea) which might allow a more universal sense of freedom. Economics is not my strong point; but I would be interested in community-managed means of production. If the people feel that more tax-related funding needs to be allocated toward public education, then they should assemble and make it happen. If that makes any community-member unhappy, then I guess they can consider relocating. I don't think a community should exercise Direct Democracy over social issues, on the other hand. I can just imagine some communities using such power to enact state-sanctioned prejudice against minorities, or some other nonsense that blatantly infringes on others' freedoms. There should always be a federal authority involved in the preservation of social freedoms, rescinding any jaundiced effort by a state entity to remove personal rights.
To simplify...
Do whatever you please, given two exceptions: Don't hurt (physically) others, or encroach on their property. The state shouldn't be concerned with matters of morality, or things that subjectively annoy / cause mental distress. Order must only entail the physical protection of citizens, and their properties. Further, the state must segregate itself from all institutions of moral or religious nature. We should no longer have state-sanctioned marriage, for instance. Get married whenever you like, and under any authority that claims to be involved in marital institutions. Just don't expect any benefits or recognition from the state. Institutions that involve marital considerations as prerequisites for benefits would have to rethink their policies, as far as I'm concerned. It's just not a state matter.
For the sake of preserving social establishment, we shall only mandate three golden rules:
1.) Do not mistreat another.
Your right to swing your fist ends where another man's nose begins. If you physically engage another person with the intention of causing harm, then you will be rehabilitated - or provided you are incapable of reformation, banished from our society altogether.
2.) Do not infringe on another's freedom.
You cannot suppress another's freedom to express themselves, practice their beliefs, etc. - whether on public property, or their private property. There are two logical exceptions: a.) When someone is on another's private property, this person must respect the rules of the property-owner, or leave that property at once; b.) When your "expression" entails causing physical harm to another, holding them captive, or otherwise threatening their life or their freedoms.
3.) Do not encroach on another's personal or private property.
If someone does not want you on their property, does not want your expressions on their property, etc. then don't bring them there. Personal rights must function in a set of tiers, with private property rescinding all else. It doesn't matter if some mall-owner wants to banish you from the premises because of your religious beliefs, nationality, etc. - that's their prerogative as a private property-owner. You have equal prerogative to banish them from your property for any reason; but neither of you must necessarily retain the freedom to set foot on any private property you please. To grant such freedom would pose a paradox: Can anyone do whatever they want, on any piece of property; or can I tell someone to leave my property when they bother me?
On the other hand, I'm willing to hear proposals for the abolishment of private property, (not personal property; like physical objects that you own - that's a separate idea) which might allow a more universal sense of freedom. Economics is not my strong point; but I would be interested in community-managed means of production. If the people feel that more tax-related funding needs to be allocated toward public education, then they should assemble and make it happen. If that makes any community-member unhappy, then I guess they can consider relocating. I don't think a community should exercise Direct Democracy over social issues, on the other hand. I can just imagine some communities using such power to enact state-sanctioned prejudice against minorities, or some other nonsense that blatantly infringes on others' freedoms. There should always be a federal authority involved in the preservation of social freedoms, rescinding any jaundiced effort by a state entity to remove personal rights.
To simplify...
Do whatever you please, given two exceptions: Don't hurt (physically) others, or encroach on their property. The state shouldn't be concerned with matters of morality, or things that subjectively annoy / cause mental distress. Order must only entail the physical protection of citizens, and their properties. Further, the state must segregate itself from all institutions of moral or religious nature. We should no longer have state-sanctioned marriage, for instance. Get married whenever you like, and under any authority that claims to be involved in marital institutions. Just don't expect any benefits or recognition from the state. Institutions that involve marital considerations as prerequisites for benefits would have to rethink their policies, as far as I'm concerned. It's just not a state matter.
