The platform says:
We advocate the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission.What does this mean, in practice? Well, it means that all broadcast frequencies will be privately owned. If the FCC is abolished, then the government cannot set any frequencies aside for emergency services or public broadcasting, and that the content of what is delivered on other frequencies cannot be regulated in any way. From a media entertainment perspective, in the context of the post-Janet Jackson FCC indecency crunch, this policy sounds fairly sensible. From an emergency services perspective, it sounds insane.
Freedom of Religion
The Party says:
We call for an end to the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.Under the long-term goals of the Libertarian Party, most organizations would be tax-exempt--but as a transitional step, this would merely give preferential tax status to entities that are willing to classify themselves as churches, regardless of their actual function. None of this has anything to do with religious free exercise. Any church that wishes to voluntarily relinquish its 501(c)(3) status can do so, losing both the financial benefits and additional regulation that come along with that status. I could wake up tomorrow and start the First Church of Tom Head for U.S. Senate, but I couldn't make it a 501(c)(3).
Property Rights
The Party says:
Rescind all taxation of real property.The impact of this decision on social services would be profound.
Property, resources and rights taken from their legitimate owners by government or by government supported private action, shall be restored to the rightful owners.Taken literally, this would restore most U.S. territory to American Indian tribes. I think a compelling case for such a policy can be made, but I don't think the Libertarian Party intended to make it.
Sunset all federal agencies that own, regulate or administer property, as well as agencies at the local level which exercise control over private property and resources.Again, this would have a radical effect on the function of the federal government--but the remarkable thing in this case is that this is actually described as a transitional step.
Right to Privacy
The Party says:
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.This is a reference to the Massachusetts universal health care proposal enacted under Governor Mitt Romney, which is the only way that universal health care can be enacted without government administration of policies. What this platform does, in effect, is state firm opposition to universal health care proposals of any kind, whether they are based on private insurance or not.
Reproductive Rights
The Party says:
We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws.This is an attempt to thread the needle and satisfy both pro-choice and pro-life members of the Libertarian Party, but in practical terms it means no free prenatal care, no free child delivery, no child tax credit, and no WIC funding. The infant mortality rate would go through the roof, and children born into poverty would have no government-funded safety net for the first several years of life. This would, in effect, punish infants and toddlers--violently--for the decisions of their parents.
And for women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term, this policy would prohibit funding of both birth control and abortion. A condom costs about 87 cents. Prices of birth control pills vary. Emergency contraception generally costs about $50. An abortion costs anywhere from $425 to $700, depending on the term of pregnancy. The cost of childrearing through age 17, independent of unexpected medical and educational expenses--remember that public hospitals and public schools, which own property, would be abolished under the Libertarian Party model--is generally estimated as being between $45,000 and $100,000. Women would of course pursue medically unsupervised abortions, using medication that would be perfectly legal and even more easily available under a Libertarian administration. And thousands of them would of course die after having done so.
The Libertarian position on reproductive rights, in other words, should offend both pro-life and pro-choice advocates. It would increase the rate of unplanned pregnancy, encourage abortion by making it impossible for low-income women to support children, and increase the infant mortality rate. The only good thing about the Libertarian Party's position on reproductive rights is that the government would not technically be guilty of actively restricting the decisions of private citizens, but it's hard to characterize such a position as pro-choice. There is more to a meaningful pro-choice platform than legal abortion.
