Slashdot Mirror

--

It's called "the great Libertarian offer," although you might not be able to order it in time for the election. The basic ideas are also at his web site, to: www.harrybrowne.org

I'm from Australia, so I can't vote in the election. It is of interest to me, though, because the US goverment is probably as important to Australia as our own (Sad but true).

I tend towards the left side of the centre politically, so there was no way I was really going to be a fan of Harry Browne's political views. After doing some reading in preperation for the K5 interview I was truely shocked at how naive the mans views are, though. I realise that he can afford not to have his idealistic Libertaian views tempered by reality because he isn't goint to win, but I did think he would/should care more about the specific issues rather than the politics.

Take his stance on environmentalism. I'm sure it is nice from the Libertaian political point of view, but from the environmental point of view it sucks, badly. Rather that go into it, read my about it - I got fairly worked up.

He clearly ;has no idea about intellecual property. Suggesting protecting it by saying use encryption make for a good sound-bite, but doesn't address specific issues like patent reform.

I could go on but I won't. All I'll do is say he sounds just like a hundred other politicions. He just echos the same statements over & over. Read his website - you won't find anything new in the K5 interview, because he doesn't want to say anything. Nothing jumps out and makes me think "Now there is a leader".

If Browne has qualified and turned down the money, not only would he have been most likely featured in the television debates,...

A question: Do you know what is required for public funding for a campaign?

Apparently not.

There are in fact three types of federal funding for Presidential campaigns:

Federal Matching Funds This is what Browne declined.

1. Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party's nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Only contributions from individuals apply toward this threshold. Although an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only a maximum of $250 counts toward the threshold and is matchable. + lots o' red tape.

General Election Funding

1. 20 to 50 mill for "Presidential candidates received between
2. 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) "

Convention Funding

1. "Each major party is entitled to a public grant of $4 million" for "a party whose Presidential candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) ...".

Bill Clinton (Democrat) 49.24

Bob Dole (Republican) 40.71

Ross Perot (Reform) 8.40

Ralph Nader (Green) .71

Harry Browne (Libertarian) .50

Howard Phillips (U.S. Taxpayers) .19

John Hagelin (Natural Law) .12

and so on

Now, in terms of the number of candidates for political office the Liberatrians appear to have the most of any 3rd party by a large margin.

1420 vs. 244 for the Greens(the next highest)

170 elected officials vs. 72 greenies.

Give me a candidate who speaks out against the war on drugs.
(And isn't a total moron about everything else!)

And please -- the Libertarians couldn't put power in the hands of big corporations if they tried. The second they are elected, they intend to fire everyone and sell everything! They won't have any power to give. Good. That's the idea. - Mark Roberts

"The most important political question you can ask yourself is simply this: Do you want smaller government? ... Do you want an end to... government intrusions into your life and your business? ... Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all. But that's the least of his many plans to make government much bigger. ... I want to make the federal government so small you won't pay any income tax. (The tariffs and excise taxes already being collected are enough to finance the constitutional functions of government.) I want to free you immediately and completely from the Social Security system. I want to sell off government assets to finance private retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on Social Security -- so you and I and every other American can immediately stop paying the 15% Social Security tax." - http://www.harrybrowne.org/

So powerful and rich corporations are gonna take care of the handicapped and homeless? They are going to school the population, and invest in sustainable and non-profit ventures?

By all means by his $17.5 book, and vote Libertarian, but at least admit that you're a right wing capitalist (and everything that goes with that).

If however you believe in direct grassroots democracy, and protecting our only habitat, vote Green.

And please -- the Libertarians couldn't put power in the hands of big corporations if they tried. The second they are elected, they intend to fire everyone and sell everything! They won't have any power to give. Good. That's the idea. - Mark Roberts

"The most important political question you can ask yourself is simply this: Do you want smaller government? ... Do you want an end to... government intrusions into your life and your business? ... Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all. But that's the least of his many plans to make government much bigger. ... I want to make the federal government so small you won't pay any income tax. (The tariffs and excise taxes already being collected are enough to finance the constitutional functions of government.) I want to free you immediately and completely from the Social Security system. I want to sell off government assets to finance private retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on Social Security -- so you and I and every other American can immediately stop paying the 15% Social Security tax." - http://www.harrybrowne.org/

So powerful and rich corporations are gonna take care of the handicapped and homeless? They are going to school the population, and invest in sustainable and non-profit ventures?

By all means by his $17.5 book, and vote Libertarian, but at least admit that you're a right wing capitalist (and everything that goes with that).

If however you believe in direct grassroots democracy, and protecting our only habitat, vote Green.

Jon Katz wrote:
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.

If large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to vote, than large numbers of Americans will be completely ignored by the system. Nobody who matters reads not voting as a sign of dissent, they read it as a sign of apathy.

What they count as a vote of dissent is a vote for something other than the main candidates. The people in charge listen to large third party turnout. The third parties don't get any closer to real participation, but the major parties lean closer to the third party positions to try to coopt a vote they consider "swing". Nonvoters aren't swing voters, they are ignored.

This year, there are four third-party candidates with significant campaigns, check them out, see if you like any of them more than Al Bush and George Gore:
Ralph Nader, Green Party
Harry Browne, Libertarian Party
Pat Buchanan,, Reform Party (a good chunk of it, anyway)
John Hagelin, Natural Law Party (and the rest of the Reform Party)
The Socialist Party is also running a candidate, but I couldn't find a good link.

If you don't like the two big-party candidates, vote for one of these, any of these, I don't care who (personally, I like Nader, but I'd prefer seeing votes for Buchanan than people staying home). If you don't like these, just decide to pick whoever ends up in the last column of your ballot (the Democrats and Republicans usually vie for the first two columns in most states); or write in a vote. Just don't stay home, and don't leave the ballot blank (some states throw blank ballots out uncounted). This is the most effective way to say you are unhappy with how things are, in a language that the media and the candidates actually understand.

----

Exactly. I will be voting for Harry Browne. It would be nice to have a president that coucl see to it where we can truly be free. Not have our lives descided for us like a herd of sheep as the current republicans and democrats wish to do. Vote Harry Browne!! to be free today.

Well, even /. is not immune from the type of news creation that is called spin.

There is a problem which is rarely considered or addressed during election-time, and that is how accurate is the data or information each voter is basing their decision upon?

Quick example is the network-televised debates in which the other candidates were excluded. When Perot was included in the 1992 debates, his standing in polls increased, but when he was excluded from the 96 debates, his numbers decreased dramatically. Clearly, excluding a candidate from the three TV debates, will greatly affect the election. The fact is that tens of millions of people get their news from pretty much the same set of sources.

I think "Spin" by Brian Springer does an excellent job of using technology to provide a glimpse into how the news is created and how the media and politicians affect how we think and behave at the voting booth. It used satellite backhauls from the events of 1992, which are raw news footage feeds unseen by viewers before the networks package and broadcast them. "Spin" is quite educational AND entertaining (who doesn't enjoy seeing Larry King demonstrate his ego, or Al Gore get made up by a spin doctor?)

There are RealPlayer versions, Media Player, and even a DivX ;-) version! "Spin" by Brian Springer originally came out in 1995 and made it's way around college campuses then. It is interesting to consider that the people in high school then, are in college now and voting age. :)

Final remark to CMDRTACO and anyone else considering voting for either Bush or Gore: there are many states where the election has already been determined. Bush will take Texas, Gore will take Mass., Gore will take California, and so on. If you live in one of these states, please do not waste your vote on either of those candidates, but instead vote your conscience guilt-free. Your vote for Gore or Bush will NOT make a difference in changing the outcome of those states; so instead, PLEASE consider voting for a third party candidate, such as Harry Browne. That is the ONLY vote that will count in those states. Just think about how clean and pure you will feel when you leave the voting booth! :)

Even /. is not immune from the type of news creation that is called spin.

There is a problem which is rarely considered or addressed during election-time, and that is how accurate is the data or information each voter is basing their decision upon?

Quick example is the network-televised debates in which the other candidates were excluded. When Perot was included in the 1992 debates, his standing in polls increased, but when he was excluded from the 96 debates, his numbers decreased dramatically. Clearly, excluding a candidate from the three TV debates, will greatly affect the election. The fact is that tens of millions of people get their news from pretty much the same set of sources.

I think "Spin" by Brian Springer does an excellent job of using technology to provide a glimpse into how the news is created and how the media and politicians affect how we think and behave at the voting booth. It used satellite backhauls from the events of 1992, which are raw news footage feeds unseen by viewers before the networks package and broadcast them. "Spin" is quite educational AND entertaining (who doesn't enjoy seeing Larry King demonstrate his ego, or Al Gore get made up by a spin doctor?)

There are RealPlayer versions, Media Player, and even a DivX ;-) version! "Spin" by Brian Springer originally came out in 1995 and made it's way around college campuses then. It is interesting to consider that the people in high school then, are in college now and voting age. :)

Final remark to CMDRTACO and anyone else considering voting for either Bush or Gore: there are many states where the election has already been determined. Bush will take Texas, Gore will take Mass., Gore will take California, and so on. If you live in one of these states, please do not waste your vote on either of those candidates, but instead vote your conscience guilt-free. Your vote for Gore or Bush will NOT make a difference in changing the outcome of those states; so instead, PLEASE consider voting for a third party candidate, such as Harry Browne. That is the ONLY vote that will count in those states. Just think about how clean and pure you will feel when you leave the voting booth! :)

Very well said. Check out Harry Browne's website for more thoughts on whether a vote for a third-party candidate is a waste or not (e.g. on the main page, scroll down to the heading How You Can Win).

Even /. is not immune from the type of news creation that is called spin.

There is a problem which is rarely considered or addressed during election-time, and that is how accurate is the data or information each voter is basing their decision upon?

Quick example is the network-televised debates in which the other candidates were excluded. When Perot was included in the 1992 debates, his standing in polls increased, but when he was excluded from the 96 debates, his numbers decreased dramatically. Clearly, excluding a candidate from the three TV debates, will greatly affect the election. The fact is that tens of millions of people get their news from pretty much the same set of sources.

I think "Spin" by Brian Springer does an excellent job of using technology to provide a glimpse into how the news is created and how the media and politicians affect how we think and behave at the voting booth. It used satellite backhauls from the events of 1992, which are raw news footage feeds unseen by viewers before the networks package and broadcast them. "Spin" is quite educational AND entertaining (who doesn't enjoy seeing Larry King demonstrate his ego, or Al Gore get made up by a spin doctor?)

There are RealPlayer versions, Media Player, and even a DivX ;-) version! "Spin" by Brian Springer originally came out in 1995 and made it's way around college campuses then. It is interesting to consider that the people in high school then, are in college now and voting age. :)

Final remark to CMDRTACO and anyone else considering voting for either Bush or Gore: there are many states where the election has already been determined. Bush will take Texas, Gore will take Mass., Gore will take California, and so on. If you live in one of these states, please do not waste your vote on either of those candidates, but instead vote your conscience guilt-free. Your vote for Gore or Bush will NOT make a difference in changing the outcome of those states; so instead, PLEASE consider voting for a third party candidate, such as Harry Browne. That is the ONLY vote that will count in those states. Just think about how clean and pure you will feel when you leave the voting booth! :)

If I vote for the Green party, and the Green party loses (which it will), what difference have I made?

If one of the third-party candidates gets 15% of the vote, they'll get Federal funding for the next election. Then they can advertise more effectively and get more of the votes in 4 years. Of course neither of the 3rd party candidates will win this time, but the more votes they get this time the better they'll do next time.

That said... VOTE HARRY BROWNE!
--

FOR GOODNESS SAKE VOTE BROWNE! THERE'S MORE CHOICES OTHER THAN FRIKIN GORE AND BUSH!!! Harrybrowne.org

I understand that you're planning on voting for Brown, but consider that the Democrats AND Republicans are both for a progressive tax system, so there is no need to single out the Green Party for their view. Sure, Bush wants a huge tax cut for the rich, but even with that tax cut the U.S. tax system would still be progressive.

What is Browne's position on taxing wages? Is he for a flat tax, or a regressive tax, or no taxes on wages? IIRC, he wants to pay for the government with only tarrifs and excise taxes, right?

I'm afraid to hear what Browne says should be done for seniors and people who can't find work. Here's a quote of Browne from his website: "Repealing the income and Social Security taxes will leave a trillion dollars a year in the private economy. That money will buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." I think a more accurate statement would be: "That money could buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." Browne has no way to guarantee that is what will happen. If it doesn't, you have all of those people stranded without any help what so ever. That doesn't sound very helpful. To me it sounds like, "Let's take the government out of welfare and hope that everything will work out for best." That doesn't address my concerns at all.

So I guess, thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with Nader.

Some people tell me that "51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing". Indeed you are right. But how come you seem to think that 51% of the people voting for a candidate, who then does this very evil thing, somehow can make it right?

Since we live in a constitutional republic, the elected leader cannot do things that violate the constitution, making him incapable of doing something evil. This is what most people fail to realize when they look at Libertarians and cry "anarchy!". A free populace has nothing to fear from a government "bound from mischief by the chains of the constitution". And a government has little to fear from a populace that is left to be free, so long as they do not violate the freedoms of others.

Unfortunately, the country has been slowly bastardized beginning with FDR's "Raw" deal, which , not so ironically, came about when the socialist party was the third largest party in America. The "forward thinking" intellectual set was bound and determined to take us in the direction of communist russia. It was the new grand experiment, and it failed miserably. America has stood this long due to it's roots in the constitution. But until we take it more seriously, rather than giving it the token nods that Bush and Gore do, we will continue to slide down the path of socialism. A direct democracy, no matter how well meaning, is a path to complete disaster. This is not pessimism, it is human nature. I'd suggest you take a look at www.lp.org and read their issues. Then read Harry Browne's piece called "trusting people" on his web site, www.harrybrowne.org. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

and as far as third party candidates go, its just a protest vote. they're not going to capture 1% of the vote so who cares.

You know, with the number of people in 1992 who said, in exit polls, that they "would have voted for Perot if it wasn't a 'wasted vote'", Perot could have won that election, or at least come in second.

I can't make you vote, but unless everyone stops listening to people that say that the third party movement is never going to get anywhere, and start voting for third parties, it's not. Get off your lazy ass, and stop being such a punk. Defeatism helps nobody.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...vote for Browne...

The following conditions have convinced me not to vote: If no candidate accurately represents your views If no candidate represents my views significantly better than any other candidate If you really believe historical precedence that half of what they say they will do they won't do anyway

Ah, but there's the rub. The idea that no candidate represents your view (or at least comes close), is absurd. In addition to those two white guys who argue on TV in different colored ties, there are also, Browne (Libertarian), Nader (Commu^H^H^H^H^HGreen), Buchanan (Fasc^H^H^H^HReform), Hagelin (Natural Law/Other Reform), and Phillips (Constitution). And those are just the ones on enough state ballots to have a chance of winning. There are also about 300 other candidates (see Dark Horse 2000 for a list) who are seriously wacky, who you could write in.

If you play the game by the rules the Man hands you, of course you lose. What did you expect. Electoral politics these days is crafted to keep people at home. With a smaller base, that's less people to pander to.

Vote for somebody. My preference is Browne (http://www.harrybrowne.org), but vote for anybody who doesn't stand for the status quo.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...passionate...

Browne is the best choice of the disaffected majority. All the good social freedoms of the left, and all the good fiscal freedoms of the right. Harry Browne wants you to be free, doesn't take FEC money because it's wrong, not because he doesn't qualify, and is a generally nice guy.

Read the Green platform before you vote for Nader. Maximum wage. Nationalization of large companies. Government representatives on the boards of the other corporations.

"Watermelon Ralph Nader. Green on the outside, Red in the middle."

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...Harry Browne...

It doesn't have to be either Republican or Democrat. I wish people would see this.

I wish EVERYONE would see this.

It's really easy. Everybody should just vote Harry Browne (or some other 3rd party).

If you hate Gore and Bush, don't pick the one you hate "least", simply pick someone else. What happened to good old common sense?

-=-

This is why I have been suspicious of Gore from day one. I remember the "Washington Wives" hearings. I remember all this crap.

Go to a Wal-Mart or a K-Mart or a Target. Try to find an album that has the "Parental Warning: Explicit Lyrics" sticker on it. C'mon, I dare ya.

Can't find one? Why? Because it's against company policy for Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target to stock albums that have the sticker. Instant censorship, folks! You want that Eminem album? You'll probably find it at Sam Goody, but not at those stores.

Do you really want this to happen to the Internet? Then elect either Gush or Bore. Actually Nader is also for 'Net censorship so he's out too. And Buchanan? Fuhgettaboutit!

Your only alternative? Vote Libertarian.

---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!

GW Bush: Al Gore is a liar. Vote for him and his big government will tell you when you can use the restroom.

John Q. Public: Sheesh...two liars, who if elected will ruin my life. Guess I'll forget to vote yet again!

"Government is really good at only one thing, and that is to break your leg, then hand you a crutch and say, 'Look, if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk,'" - Harry Browne

Given the usual results, it's kind of stupid, but not wrong (if you pump your own money, not somebody else's, of course).

Is it wrong to expect the rich to pay more taxes?

I don't object to the idea that the rich should pay in direct proportion -- the more you own, the more benefit you get from the nice policeman who carts thieves off to jail.

Note the words "direct proportion"; that means a flat rate (except for a zero bracket for the first $X, to protect people who genuinely can't afford to pay).

Is it wrong to vote for someone who is obviously more intelligent?

Of course not; that's what I plan to do.

Is it wrong to dream that a Great Society can help improve the lot for all its citizens with directed government programs and ideas?

Well, no. It's not wrong to dream that you can fly like Superman, either. It's just not very wise to base your actions on either notion.
/.

Give me a candidate who speaks out against the war on drugs.

---

Harry Browne does. http://www.harrybrowne.org

Mr. X

Why can't \. just stay out of politics and stick to what is "technically speaking" important to the online community? Granted, you can filter out these political diatribes WHEN THEY ARE MARKED AS SUCH, but this left leaning influence often permeates other articles.

I don't care to hear how electing Republicans is the same as taking away some "God" given right that people seem to think they have. I don't care to hear that conservative views are destroying our "right to net." I want geek news! Not tilted rants! Even when you filter out the politics with \.'s filtering, this leftist dribble just influence's the culture on the website among the readers to rant from the left on those posts where politics don't belong.

Enough already!

We should all be voting for Harry Browne anyway...

Just because he is a getting a small portion of the vote doesn't mean that the libertarian party is politically irrelevent though; of all of the "third parties" in the US, they have managed to get the most people elected. They just tend to have success in local elections in various places, rather than in the federal government. However, I will not vote for Browne because he is just too extreme. For example, he honestly tries to explain why it is critical that assault rifles be legal and we get rid of laws requiring gun registration, child safety locks on guns, etc. While I support people's second amendment right to have guns, I feel that this is going too far. Furthermore, his desire to remove all laws stopping companies from polluting is ridiculous. He says they still wouldn't because there's a natural economic incentive to keep the land you own healthy, but this totally disregards the "tragedy of the commons" type effct, whereby companies will pollute the air since it affects everyone equally, rather than just hurting them stronlgy. By the way, for anyone whose interesed, they also have the Great Libertarian Offer video in realvideo format on Browne's webiste if you don't feel like purchasing it.

By the way, I've realized how the war on drugs will end, and it won't really be through us electing the right politicians. The war on drugs is just too deeply entrenched in the United States. What's going to happen is every other country (by which I obviously mean Europe and Canada) is going to have to legalize first. Then, after a few years (maybe as much as 5-10), the US will look pretty stupid for being the only country left with drug laws, other than Singapore and Afghanistan. No one will be able to talk about the damage legalization will do to society with a straight face anymore, and people will start to wonder why the US isn't keeping up with the rest of the world, and our politicians will reluctantly give in and follow suit. This is not and issue where we will ever be leading.

Care about freedom?

At the risk of being moderated offtopic, I'll give you two. I will do so because I believe that this is the most important issue and the mainstream candidates simply won't discuss it. Small tax cuts and boosts to social security just do not impress me when Bush and Gore will continue to have peaceful Americans thrown in jail for doing nothing wrong while others are forced to live in fear. They mean nothing to me when the first and fourth amendment are being stripped and property can be seized at will. So I cannot vote for any candidate who supports the war on drugs.

If you care, you can vote for:

• Although his site doesn't seem to think it's important enough to even list it as one of "the issues", Ralph Nader has called for major changes to the drug war. In particular, he wants to support marijuana legalisation, calling to change our "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
• Harry Browne the Libertarian Party candidate, has vowed to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on his first day as president. His explanation of his views on drugs is most impressive.

At the risk of being moderated offtopic, I'll give you two. I will do so because I believe that this is the most important issue and the mainstream candidates simply won't discuss it. Small tax cuts and boosts to social security just do not impress me when Bush and Gore will continue to have peaceful Americans thrown in jail for doing nothing wrong while others are forced to live in fear. They mean nothing to me when the first and fourth amendment are being stripped and property can be seized at will. So I cannot vote for any candidate who supports the war on drugs.

If you care, you can vote for:

• Although his site doesn't seem to think it's important enough to even list it as one of "the issues", Ralph Nader has called for major changes to the drug war. In particular, he wants to support marijuana legalisation, calling to change our "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
• Harry Browne the Libertarian Party candidate, has vowed to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on his first day as president. His explanation of his views on drugs is most impressive.

Good for you, that's what I'm doing also. Remember, your vote is not going to decide the election. Bush or Gore is going to win regardless of whether you or I vote for Bush, Browne, or Cthulu. The truly wasted vote is when you vote for the lesser of two evils, because you have declared that you support something that you don't.

Go Harry!

Your website says that you would support the government by excise taxes and tariffs, but how are excise taxes and tariffs acceptable, while income taxes are not? Isn't any form of taxation a violation of the fundamental libertarian principle of noninitiation of force? Why should tariffs impede foreign trade?

Granted, a government would be difficult to maintain without taxes, but on what moral grounds would you collect taxes? For what purposes is the government allowed to collect taxes? Why is national defense a valid function of the federal government but not, say, law enforcement?

You would repeal all gun laws, but would you allow people to possess automatic guns? How about bombs? Biological weapons? Thermonuclear devices? Where do you draw the line, and why?

Your website says that you would support the government by excise taxes and tariffs, but how are excise taxes and tariffs acceptable, while income taxes are not? Isn't any form of taxation a violation of the fundamental libertarian principle of noninitiation of force? Why should tariffs impede foreign trade?

Granted, a government would be difficult to maintain without taxes, but on what moral grounds would you collect taxes? For what purposes is the government allowed to collect taxes? Why is national defense a valid function of the federal government but not, say, law enforcement?

You would repeal all gun laws, but would you allow people to possess automatic guns? How about bombs? Biological weapons? Thermonuclear devices? Where do you draw the line, and why?

• If you look at periods of time when you had massive unrestricted use of drugs (look at the 19th century England/America to see some good examples).

• Control of drugs has been a good thing.

• Getting stoned out of your gord and becomming insanely addicted to something and the social, political, societal, health, etc ramifactions of such were quite bad hence legislation.

• I don't know about you but I don't see too many opioum addicts roming around today.

Don't wimp out and vote for Bush or Gore, please!

I'm gonna hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush, he represents the least totalitarian idealogy. Maybe we can explain the web to him.

You're forgetting one, and amazingly it's the one that's the *LEAST* totalitarian of the bunch: Harry Browne.

You probably don't know about him, because the press doesn't cover him. Curiously, they cover Nader, who's behind Browne in the polls, and who is also on the ballot in fewer states than Browne.

And if you want to explain something to the Libertarian party, you can use their PGP key.

Try that with the Republicrats or the Democretins.

-

Hoplophobe - a person who has a morbid, irrational fear of, or aversion to guns, firearms

Vote Harry Browne for President!

I can't believe this tilted troll made it past the editors of Slashdot. I'd appreciate less politicing, and left of center diatribes on the part of Slashdot. Give me news for nerds, not pundits!

If people were that concerned about government infringement, they'd vote for Browne.

I don't know why you're singling Bush out as being opposed to free speech. Gore and Lieberman are the ones running around announcing their plans to censor all entertainment media (that is, when they're not attending fundraisers in Hollywood). Also remember that Clinton and Gore enthusiastically supported the Communications Decency Act (unanimously struck down by a mostly Republican-appointed Supreme Court) and the Clipper chip. Censorship is not really a Democrat vs Republican issue; neither party has any objection to abridging freedom if they think it will help them win votes from soccer moms or bible-thumpers. One of many reasons I'm voting Libertarian.

Recipe for tax simplification in the U.S. (and possibly elsewhere):

Step 1. Require that all politicians complete their taxes by themselves (no help interpreting the laws from CPAs, accountants, or lawyers) and by hand (no TurboTax wizards, although I suppose we should allow Excel spreadsheets and calculators to be fair). Let them see just how difficult they have made the situation for the average citizen.

Step 2. Sit back and wait as the moans mount from Washington D.C. and the respective state capitals.

Basically, my problem with U.S. income tax laws is that they are so complicated that no human being can actually hope to comprehend them (unless they happen to have a super-simple life, like $20K in salary and no income from savings, investments, etc.). But the politicians who create the laws don't *have* to comprehend them, because they can hire a bunch of accountants to worry about it for them. And even though I think Gore is probably a more viable candidate than the other goofball, the complexity he wants to add to the tax code scares the crap out of me.

I support Harry Browne, Libertarian for President.

Check out Harry Browne for someone who uses a Dell laptop every day of the week and has done some programming along the way. He may not be the "inventor of the Internet," but at least he uses it and is knowledgeable about the censorship issues surrounding Internet usage.

If you want a candidate who won't nationalize the Internet, who won't take 80% of your income in taxes, and who won't destroy technological innovation in transportation, check out Harry Browne.

(1) the only real political power comes from having a large pocketbook, not from having the right to vote;

(2) the only candidates we are really permitted to choose from in elections are ones who take and raise tons of money, so your everyday citizen with a sharp mind and a genuine concern for the well-being of the general public simply can't afford to run a competitive campaign;

3) the only candidates we are permitted to choose from are part of the same insidious little elite of lawyers, corporatists, and career politicians that have caused all the problems for this country in the first place.

And finally, "Campaign Reform" is just another way the Republican-Democrat party has of guaranteeing its incumbency. All "Campaign Reform" is an unconstitutional limitation on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Replace all "Campaign Reform" with a voluntary posting on a public website of all campaign contributions and their sources. That'll be real campaign reform.

(1) the only real political power comes from having a large pocketbook, not from having the right to vote;

(2) the only candidates we are really permitted to choose from in elections are ones who take and raise tons of money, so your everyday citizen with a sharp mind and a genuine concern for the well-being of the general public simply can't afford to run a competitive campaign;

3) the only candidates we are permitted to choose from are part of the same insidious little elite of lawyers, corporatists, and career politicians that have caused all the problems for this country in the first place.

And finally, "Campaign Reform" is just another way the Republican-Democrat party has of guaranteeing its incumbency. All "Campaign Reform" is an unconstitutional limitation on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Replace all "Campaign Reform" with a voluntary posting on a public website of all campaign contributions and their sources. That'll be real campaign reform.

(1) the only real political power comes from having a large pocketbook, not from having the right to vote;

(2) the only candidates we are really permitted to choose from in elections are ones who take and raise tons of money, so your everyday citizen with a sharp mind and a genuine concern for the well-being of the general public simply can't afford to run a competitive campaign;

3) the only candidates we are permitted to choose from are part of the same insidious little elite of lawyers, corporatists, and career politicians that have caused all the problems for this country in the first place.

And finally, "Campaign Reform" is just another way the Republican-Democrat party has of guaranteeing its incumbency. All "Campaign Reform" is an unconstitutional limitation on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Replace all "Campaign Reform" with a voluntary posting on a public website of all campaign contributions and their sources. That'll be real campaign reform.

Money isn't always evil, it's what you do with it that counts...

Remember that most of the people who love and promote "Campaign Reform" do so because they remember what a single donor (of $800K) to Eugene McCarthy's campaign in 1968, did to defeat Lyndon Baines "Bomb 'em into the Stone Age" Johnson in the New Hampshire primaries.

Money talks. But if all the money available for campaigning is locked up in "Campaign Reform" PACs and other incumbency-insurance schemes, nobody outside the Republican-Democrat party can get elected.

If you want a real choice this time around, vote Libertarian!

4 - Replace the ponzi scheme of Social Insecurity with privately funded and privately directed investments that each citizen owns for themselves.

The Chileans had a Social Insecurity system somewhat before we did (they started in the 1920's, we didn't start down the road to serfdom until FDR's 1930's). Chile privatized their Social Security system in 1980 and Chileans are now retiring as millionaires.

Our current system is weighted against poor, colored people, since they generally die before they get to collect any Social Insecurity, and Social Insecurity can't be passed on to their heirs.

A privatized system like the Chilean system won't discriminate against the working poor and will allow them to pass their benefits on to their survivors.

Replace the coercively-funded Social Insecurity system with a privately-funded pension system that will truly provide for the working poor. Vote Libertarian!

I went to the primaries, and was shocked to find out that half the things to vote for had NO ONE under them, fill in the blank.

I'd like to welcome you back to the Libertarian Party, where we pay for our own primaries, and have an excellent presidential candidate Harry Browne and candidates for a majority of the U.S. House seats, a feat last performed by a non-Democrat-Republican party 80 years ago.

If the Libertarian party isn't too active in Omaha, activate it. Be a self-governor and take responsibility for your own political life.

Voting for Nader ensures that the Greens will get Federal matching funds in the future. That in and of itself is worth a vote for him.

Translation: Vote for Nader and the government will force everyone else to fund the next Green campaign.

Incidentally, it's this kind of thinking that has destroyed the Reform Party.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...Browne don't want no matching funds...

I guess I'm stuck voting for the lesser of two evils in the presidential election, Gore is pretty unimpressive, but I'm going to vote for him. GWB reminds me of Councilor/Darth Sidious from SWE1, definite disconnection from reality there, everything he says makes me distrust everything he says. My internal bullshit/untrustable filters indicate 100% BS, bright lights flashing and sirens going off. (Although, I gotta say Liebermann LOOKS more like Darth Sidious! :)


You're not stuck doing anything. If you want the LP to live, don't sell out and vote for Bush or Gore. If there aren't a lot of people running as Libertarians, run, or get a friend to run. Between apathy and ballot access laws, Libertarians have some major hurdles to cross, but we're making steady progress, and sustainable progress at that, as opposed to the Reform Party, which has just imploded after only 8 years of existence.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...vote Browne...

Legality is a matter for the courts and that is still being decided. Regardless, it is not wrong, no matter what you or the courts say. It allows the owner of a DVD to make a copy for space-shifting purposes, a long-recognized application of fair use. It could also be used to pirate DVDs, just like a CD burner can be used to pirate software. The possibility of illegal use does not justify the criminalization of all use.

If it were to pipe an MPEG video player, not logically going to the hard drive (i.e. only possibly going through virtual memory) then it would not be illegal because it would not "copy" the movie!

It would still be copied to RAM, which would probably be sufficient for the MPAA weasels to try to ban it.

Given that it is IP rights that protect GPL'ed code, one must respect others IP rights by not taking illegal actions because one thinks it's okay.

No one has a duty to obey an unjust law. Arguably, one has a duty to break it. Martin Luther King, yada yada yada.

/. should be careful about trivializing IP or it may find itself at the butt end of a lawsuit.

/. allows a forum for posters to express their views. Any law of which that would be in violation needs to be swiftly challenged and disposed of.

Not to say that it is wrong to oppose oppresive laws and systems, but /. is becoming the "no IP" site.

The /. "official policy" (not that there is one) is not that all IP is bad, but that entities which attempt to abuse IP with bogus patents (Amazon, BT...), post-sale license "agreements" (CueCat, MS...), and purchased legislation (MPAA, RIAA...) should be stopped. (Voting Libertarian would be a good start.)