Derrick Michael Reid #013 Concord New Hampshire LP Speech

• Report rights infringement
• published: 09 Apr 2016
• views: 4

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Speech Concord New Hampshire State Convention Anarchists and Sovereigns Anarchists seek to abolish government functions. Sovereigns seek to abolish government control over personal conduct. In both cases, the weight of government oppression on liberties and freedoms is the motivation. The problem with Anarchy is that society collapses giving rise to mob bosses and tyrants, replacing totalitarian government tyrants with other tyrants. The problem with sovereignty is that individuals do not live in isolation requiring enforced codes of conduct for society to prosper. Freedom is with responsibility, but at times, some people are not very responsible, affecting others adversely, requiring codes of conduct. Anarchists and Sovereigns are core libertarians who have let their passion for liberty and freedom exceed reasonableness bounds that are necessary for a thriving prospering society. Anarchists and Sovereigns are necessary elements in the Libertarian party seeking more liberties and freedom from government. The libertarian Party slogan of "minimum government, maximum liberty" is key to the understanding that government controls currently have gone to far and need to be minimized, and in this, anarchists and sovereigns are on the right tract towards maximum liberty. Anarchists and Sovereigns can help guide a libertarian administration seeking to minimize government and maximize liberty, moderated by reasonable and necessary bounds. So Sovereigns believe in "Natural Rights", the right to do as one pleases as long as you dont "hurt or take" from others. This is a good base for libertarians to promote libertarianism, provided liberty sought is "reasonable". The terms "hurt or take" are ripe for lawyer scrutiny and how the desires for natural rights can work practically for society at large. Black and White analysis seldom practically works well. Lets take for example, a nuisance case, where your neighbor plays loud music late at night. Is he hurting anyone? He is not hurting anyone physically, directly, though may be causing emotional stress in others. Is that a "hurt"? In all matters where people live in close proximity to each other, social conduct is seldom isolated without causal connections to others and to the general population. Pure natural rights could be successfully practiced by a 19th century mountain man, such as Bridgers, where he could be his own sovereign in remote isolated areas, being totally free, with natural rights of liberty. In our society, where 300m+ live in large cities and towns, natural rights should be maximized but also need to be reasonably contained, so that society as a whole advances with maximum prosperity and civility. Lets take another example. A 1000 home community is predominately Christian, with a center Church and School, and the families all love their community. An individual with allot of money buys up properties between the Church and School, so that, the kids pass therebetween each day. This individual wants to recruit and indoctrinate new patrons. This individual builds 1) a whorehouse, 2) an opium den, 3) a Satanic Temple, 4) a casino, 5) a pot shop, 6) a pornography shop, 7) an XXX movie theater, 8) a gay bar, etc, buildings having purpose contrary to the life style of the parents of the community. Did this individual "hurt" the community, the homeowners, the parents, and their parental rights, or the children? If you ask the parents, they would say yes, of course, as this individual showed no respect at all for the community, the parents and their parental rights, and degraded their property values, and injected decadence into their lives and their community, homes, life styles, and children. To the homeowners, that is real hurt, unspeakable hurt, an outrage in the extreme. In the end, natural rights are desirable to the extent reasonably practical under all the circumstances. The focus of the sovereigns should not be the absolute demand for natural rights, (my way or the highway) but to push toward increasing natural rights and liberties and freedoms from government, all within reason and to the furthest extent practicable, without "indirectly" hurting and disrespecting others.