Young Americans for Liberty Hold Civil Liberties Debate

Liberty University’s chapter of Young Americans for Liberty hosted a civil liberties debate Thursday, April 19, where members of the Republican, Democratic and Libertarian parties gathered to discuss pressing issues in social reform.

Party representatives debated a series of five topics that represent the most contested issues in today’s political climate.

Tori Mabry, a Liberty senior who attends College Republicans at Liberty University meetings, came to the debate to hear the Libertarian and Democratic perspectives on the topics.

“Often, we hear debates from politicians, but we never hear actual student debates,” Mabry said. “Not everyone is a conservative, so to see the diversity of thoughts and opinions I think will be interesting.”

Aaron Sobczak, president of College Libertarians at Liberty University, came in hopes that students would learn which party their opinions most reflect.

“I hope that we’ll get a great debate, and I hope that people will more properly understand where their beliefs come from and what party they align with,” Sobczak said.

After a short round of introductions, the debate kicked off with its first topic — discrimination. Panelist were asked if they believe that businesses should have the right to discriminate against their clients.

“If you tell someone that they cannot discriminate, that opens up a really big can of worms,” John Reid, the Republican representative and avid blogger in the debate, said. “Freedom of association is an imperative for Democrats, Libertarians and Republicans.”

Libertarian representative Eli McGowan shared a similar view on discrimination and freedom of association.

“Libertarians believe that you have a fundamental, human right to freedom of association, and that you don’t have to associate with anyone … you don’t want to,” McGowan said.

McKinley Cardwell, the Democratic representative, refused to take a definitive side on the issue due to its complexity. He also shared that it is up to the American people to address issues of modern day discrimination.

“I think that right now, it is a slippery slope to really pick a side on this issue,” Cardwell said. “When it comes to something this small, I think it is the job of the media and the job of the people to go against that tide.”

Drug policy was another issue debated Thursday night. Each party representative was asked to state their opinion on the war on drugs as well as lay out a definitive drug policy.

Libertarians hold that current drug policy is infringing on the rights of citizens and exploiting minorities.

“It’s bolstering our gigantic prison system,” McGowan said. “It’s also unfairly impacting urban areas and minorities who make up the majority of drug arrest.”

Cardwell’s opinion on the war on drugs was similar to McGowan’s, as he criticized the justice system for subjugating minority communities.

“When it comes to the war on drugs, (the justice system) is a terrible institution that has ripped and stripped the lives of many people,” Cardwell said. “We can’t keep on throwing (African Americans) into prison because they were using (drugs) in the ghetto.”

Reid believed that drug policy should vary based on the drug, saying that the penalty for marijuana usage should be a citation, not jail time.

“They say ‘Let people have their autonomy, let people have their independence’ – I get it in principle,” Reid said. “But at the same time, there is an interest in protecting the people.”

The final topic of the night was immigration.

Libertarians were in favor of scrapping the idea altogether, arguing that immigration is a benefit to our economy and that we should welcome anyone willing to make the sacrifice of immigrating to the United States.

“Our economy grows during times of immigration,” McGowan said. “Anyone who is willing to leave their old life behind them, and come to America … we should be proud and honored that they are willing to spend their future with us,”

Republicans and Democrats were both in favor of immigration reform, believing that our current system is broken and needs fixing.

“It’s very easy to say ‘come here legally,’” Reid said. “But if you don’t provide an opportunity for them to do that, then why are we saying it?”

Reid and Cardwell agreed that a system creating an easier and more efficient path to citizenship is necessary if we are to continue the demand of legal immigration.

After the debate, the panelists gave a few closing statements and then enjoyed some complimentary pizza with students.

“Christianity is not one party,” Cardwell said. “If we limit our thinking, we are going to limit our ministry. We have to see Christianity as an unboxed place.”