We support full restitution for all loss suffered by those
whose person or property is injured in the course of criminal proceedings that
do not result in their conviction. However, we find the use of taxpayer funds
for this restitution to be an added insult, allowing those perpetrators to
escape their responsibility while adding taxpayers to the list of victims of
such abuses. When they are found responsible, government employees, agents, or
law enforcement officials should be held personally liable for this
restitution.
We call for a reform of the judicial system to
allow criminal defendants and civil parties to a court action a reasonable
number of peremptory challenges to proposed judges, similar to their right
under the present system to challenge a proposed juror.
We consider the current practice of forced jury duty to be
involuntary servitude, just as we also see the military draft and compulsory
education; therefore we favor all-volunteer juries. In addition, in all cases
to which the government is a party, the judge should be required to inform the
jurors of their right under Georgia's Constitution to be judges of the law as
well as the facts, and to instruct them to acquit a criminal defendant, and to
find against the government in a civil trial, whenever they deem the law unjust
or oppressive.
For individuals as well as governments, the only legitimate use
of force is in the defense of individual rights -- life, liberty, and property
acquired by mutual consent -- against aggression, whether by force or fraud. We
believe individuals have the right to ask for help as well as the right to
provide help to others in these defenses.
The right of defense extends to defense against aggressive acts
of government. We favor an immediate end to the doctrine of "Sovereign
Immunity" which ignores the primacy of the individual over the abstraction
of the State, and holds that the State, contrary to the tradition of redress of
grievances, may not be sued without its permission or held accountable for its
actions under civil law.
We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or for
involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We oppose the recent use of
mental testing as a response to lawful dissent.
We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program
of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.
We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on
"insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the
guilty of their responsibility.
As Libertarians, we believe a robust marketplace of ideas is
essential for a free society. Accordingly, we defend the rights of individuals
to unrestricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press in all media,
including the internet. We hold that the First Amendment unequivocally protects
the right of individuals to dissent from government itself.
We oppose any expansion of common law restrictions on the right
of free speech such as slander and libel laws. We oppose any abridgment of the
freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation, or ownership or
control of communications media. These include, but are not limited to, laws
concerning:
- Commercial speech or advertising;
- Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this
to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite unsubstantiated claims
that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;
- Reception and storage equipment, such as radar warning
devices, and the manufacture of video terminals by telephone companies;
- Internet servers, communications networks, and other
interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of
speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications,
and as such deserving of full freedom; and
- Electronic newspapers, electronic "Yellow Pages",
and other new information media, as these deserve full freedom.
We oppose speech codes at all schools that are primarily tax
funded, and we counsel against their use at privately funded institutions. That
some language is found offensive by certain groups or individuals is not a
cause for legal action.
We oppose government ownership or subsidy of, or funding for,
any communications organization -- specifically public broadcasting.
We strongly oppose the government's burgeoning practice of
invading newsrooms or the premises of other innocent third parties in the name
of law enforcement. We further oppose court orders gagging news coverage of
criminal proceedings -- the right to publish and broadcast must not be abridged
merely for the convenience of the judicial system. We deplore any efforts to impose
thought control on the media, either by the use of anti-trust laws, by
government payments to broadcast outlets or content providers for including
"proper" story lines in entertainment programming, or by any other
government action in the name of stopping "bias."
Removal of all of these regulations and practices throughout
the communications media would open the way to diversity and innovation. We
shall not be satisfied until the First Amendment is expanded to protect full,
unconditional freedom of communication in all media.
13. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain
from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We
hold that exercise of this freedom does not enhance nor diminish an
individual's right to participate in secular political activity. In order to
defend freedom, we oppose government actions that either aid or attack any
religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we
oppose all taxation. We oppose the harassment of churches by the Georgia
Department of Revenue through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches
that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.
Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or
non-violent activities must end. We also recognize that the expression
"wall between church and state" does not appear in the U.S.
Constitution; we believe public expressions of religious belief on government
property are not in and of themselves a threat of religious establishment.
14. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
Property rights and human rights are mutually dependant; we
believe the idea of human rights without property rights is a fantasy that has
never existed in practice. Since property rights are the rights of humans with
respect to property, they are entitled to the same respect and protection as
all other human rights. Indeed, self-ownership is the basis of such rights as the
freedom from involuntary servitude, freedom of speech, and freedom of the
press. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land
or material objects. Further, one's body is one's to do with as one sees fit
and is not the concern of the state in any measure.
We further hold that the owners of property have the full right
to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without
interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid
rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property,
liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national
security, the wars on drugs or terrorism, or public health. We also condemn
current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name
of aesthetic values, historic preservation, riskiness, moral standards,
cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We
hold that zoning laws are an intolerable violation of property rights. We
specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private
businesses by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking
areas for their employees or their customers.
For that reason we call for the repeal of all state and local smoking
bans.
We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real
property, for property taxes have the effect of making the State the owner of
all lands, and force individuals to rent their homes and places of business
from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize
sports teams or to try to force or appease them to stay in their present
location. We appreciate the Georgia
Legislature’s
enactment of the Landowner’s Bill Of Rights and Private Property
Protection Act, and applaud the state’s voters for ratifying the 2006 Constitutional
Amendment limiting the use of eminent domain.
Where property, including land, has been taken from its
rightful owners by the government or by private action in violation of
individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
15. PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
Present practice demonstrates that the biggest threat to an
individual's privacy is not industry or fellow citizens, but government at all
levels. We hold the right to privacy should not be infringed by the government.
The state should not use any covert surveillance of an individual's actions or
private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence,
financial records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records,
and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of
all parties involved in those actions; accordingly, we oppose proposals for
government mandated central databases of medical records. We voice our disapproval of the “know your
customer” rule for financial institutions that was enacted under another name
as part of the Patriot Act.
We oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or
seize materials belonging to innocent third parties. We also oppose police
roadblocks aimed at randomly, and without probable cause, testing drivers for
intoxication and police practices to stop mass transit vehicles and search passengers
without probable cause.
So long as government agencies' compilations of data on an
individual continue to exist, they should be conducted only with the consent of
the persons from whom the data is sought.
If a private employer screens prospective or current employees
via questionnaires, polygraph tests, urine tests for drugs, blood tests for
AIDS, or other means, this is a condition of that employer's labor contracts.
Such screening does not violate the rights of employees, who have the right to
boycott such employers if they choose. Private contractual arrangements,
including labor contracts, must be founded on mutual consent and agreement in a
society that upholds freedom of association. On the other hand, we oppose any
use of such screening by government or regulations requiring government
contractors to impose any such screening.
We oppose government regulations that require employers to
provide health insurance coverage for employees, which often encourage
unnecessary intrusions by employers into the privacy of their employees.
We categorically oppose the creation by the government of an
identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or
licensing. This opposition extends to state laws requiring fingerprinting as a
condition of drivers, firearms, and/or professional licensing.
We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of
the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by
government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments.
It is our position that no jurisdiction in a
free state has the right to require fingerprinting of citizens without probable
cause, or without their freely given consent.
16. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is
essential to a free society. We affirm the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear
arms belongs to individuals, and we oppose all laws at any level of government
restricting, regulating, or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer, or
sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of
firearms or ammunition, for history has shown registration leads inevitably to
confiscation. We also oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use
of other self-protection devices such as tear gas, "mace," or tasars.
We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that
they are risky or unsafe. We especially decry attempts to use the court system
to create an illegitimate concept of "strict liability," which would
hold firearms manufacturers financially liable for third party uses of a lawful
product that functions exactly as advertised and allowed.
17. GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION & FREEDOM OF
ASSOCIATION
No level of government can be allowed to deny, abridge, or
enhance the individual rights of members of any group at the expense of other
people's rights, no matter how well-intentioned. This includes attempts to
classify people on the basis of sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national
origin, personal habits, political preference, genetic makeup, or sexual
orientation. Protective labor laws, so-called "hate crime" laws, and
other laws that violate rights selectively should be repealed entirely rather
than be extended to all groups.
Discrimination imposed by the government has brought disruption
in normal relationships of people, set neighbor against neighbor, created gross
injustices, destroyed voluntary communities, and diminished human potential.
Anti-discrimination laws enforced by the government are the reverse side of the
same coin, and for the same reasons create the same problems. Consequently, we
oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including
choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned
businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any
reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to
associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent. We agree with
Friedrich Hayek that radical egalitarianism -- socialism -- is incompatible
with individual freedom.
18. "HATE" CRIMES
We oppose what are commonly called "hate
crimes." We oppose all attempts to
prosecute people because of their thoughts or words. We support the vigorous
prosecution of criminals only for their criminal acts. We do not believe people
should be criminal penalized in any way for their beliefs, for that would be
criminalizing dissent. We oppose all legislation providing enhanced or reduced
penalties for crimes based upon the bias or prejudice of the criminal in
selecting the victim or property. We believe that the Georgia Supreme Court
correctly held the state’s 2000 Hate Crime statute unconstitutional,
and we strongly urge the Legislature to resist misguided sentiment to enact a
replacement.
19. SEXUAL RIGHTS AND THE STATE
We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged
on the basis of sex or sexual preference. We call for repeal of all laws
discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws. We oppose all laws
likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen
tyranny through reverse discrimination. We affirm the right of adults to
private choice in consensual sexual activity.
Government must neither dictate, prohibit, control, nor
encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual
relationship. We therefore call for repeal of all legislation and state
policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or discourage sexual lifestyles
or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that
libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government
should be kept entirely out of the question, allowing all individuals to be
guided by their own consciences. We oppose legislation restricting or
subsidizing women's access to abortion or other reproductive health services;
this includes requiring consent of the prospective father, waiting periods, and
mandatory indoctrination on fetal development, as well as Medicaid or any other
taxpayer funding. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that
abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
We also condemn state-mandated abortions.
It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the
state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing,
Cesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home
births.
20. FAMILY LIFE
We support protection of the integrity of families and
households as contractual institutions against government intrusion and
interference. Such governmental interference has undermined the value of
families and households as cultural institutions of love, nurture,
companionship, kinship, and personal development by forcing them to conform to
a rigid, inflexible design. Moreover, we condemn the usurpation by government
through morals laws, government welfare programs, and government schools, of
activities long carried on by families and households. We further accuse
government of designing educational programs that place civic and moral
education under the control of politicians and of designing welfare laws that
destroy families and households.
