Slashdot Mirror

"Better than nothing" is a pretty low standard though. The alternative wouldn't be to replace them with nothing, but with competing private schools. Harry Brown puts the argument pretty well here.

Oh, and comparing literacy rates from before public schools (1840?) and 2001 is of course of very litle value, since society has changed in 42 zillion other ways in between.

Is it surprising that it was this close? I mean, really, it's not a 2 party system anymore - it's just 2 heads on a 1 party system. Sure, they claim to be "Republicans" and "Democrats," but really they're both for big government - they just disagree where to spend the money. I am proud to have voted for the only candidate for small government; the only candidate who wants you to be free to run your own life: the Libertarian Harry Browne.

You can read more about the Libertarian Party here, or check out Browne's website. The voting is done for this year, but the Libertarian Party is a movement, not a single-shot candidate like Nader or Perot. We are growing, and we will fill the void, returning smaller government and freedom to the nation.

wish
---

My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that most of the world wishes the US would go away and shut the hell up. Certainly I wish we would. That's why I didn't vote for either of the candidates you mentioned. Both would, in my mind, continue to infringe on other nations' sovereignty, in Europe and elsewhere. Instead I voted for Harry Browne, who has vowed to end our meddling in other nations' affairs. Note that this differs from Mr. Buchanan's isolationist policies in that diplomacy and trade relations would be considered beneficial and continued as freely as is possible.

All that aside, quite frankly I don't care what Europeans think about our President. Lord knows I don't care who you elect either. I certainly wouldn't want to live under socialism, but if you do, you have every right to choose whatever parties and politicians you like regardless of what I think. We retain the same rights. That's why there are independent, sovereign nations, so that we don't have to put up with your idiotic policies, nor you with ours. It's my sincere hope that the latter will be a reality in the near future.

And there are more than two candidates in the race (at least, there were 7 in my state). And more than one runs Free software. Harry Browne is one of them. IIRC he's running Apache 1.3.9 or some such.

How can all of the other candidates talk about reducing taxpayer burdens, while pickpocketing taxpayers to pay for their campaigns (or wishing that they could)???

As for your reasons for supporting the goron -- oh, puh-lease. Matthew Shepard's killers are being prosecuted -- for murder. Abortion is and should be a matter of personal morals, not gov't decrees. And Microsoft's success is hard-earned -- and will not be cured by a Federal Department of Software Innovation.

[The following is a revision of a letter I have been distributing via email. I ought to have posted this earlier, but I lacked the courage. You can find the original on my website.]

Dear US Citizen,

I am writing to remind you to vote conscientiously tomorrow. I will also indulge in a little political activism by introducing some issues (watered stock, free trade, and others) for your consideration. As you read this message, keep in mind that I am not recommending that you vote for this or that candidate, but only that you think about what is at stake, make a choice, and vote.

I wish to bring to your attention a pattern of behavior by national governments that suggests that, in the world-wide political arena, the interests of citizens rank far below those of large corporations, and that the latter seek actively to diminish the influence of citizens on their governments' legislative activity. In some countries, citizens are even compelled by law to foot the bill for this nonsense. ;) It is worth noting that the worst consequences of this are not in the future: most US citizens feel so disenfranchised today that they either don't vote or vote for the lesser evil, and US taxpayers (citizens or not) bear the burden of unprecedented personal and national debt. If you don't vote, you will be capitulating, and the future of US politics will be that much closer to a foregone conclusion. As a citizen of the European Union and a resident of Switzerland, a very small sovereign state, I have learned that the rest of the world cannot afford apathy or carelessness on the part of registered voters in the US. You can think of this message as a plea for help.

[As you read this, please excuse the careless use of "Americans" where "US citizens" would have been correct.]

The first issue I want to discuss is the connection between corporations and public money. You may or may not be aware of the emergence of watered stock and pooling as a powerful weapons in the corporations' arsenal; for example, Microsoft and Cisco have managed to attain tax-free status by writing off stock options (and then earning some of that back when new stock is issued for the purpose of redeeming those options) and Citigroup recapitalizes and decapitalizes itself arbitrarily to achieve spectacular mergers (thus posing a great risk to the banking sector) -- right under the nose of the SEC. In a perfect world, this sort of abuse would have been reigned in already but, in our world, the possibility of relief seems remote. Let me make this plain: the watered stock write-off scheme amounts to a theft of public money and pooling needlessly endangers the stability of the economy. At the very least, insofar as stock represents a redeemable claim against a company's assets, it is a perversion of the modern economic perspective in which the stock market is allegedly as adequate a store of value as gold ever was.

Actually, said modern economic perspective was already quite perverse (in ways too numerous to mention) long before watered stock was even imagined. Such perversity is a natural consequence of the absence of an adequate standard of value, which was in turn an intended consequence of changes in policy that took place earlier in the century. Long ago, Alan Greenspan explained that the institution he heads today is a powerful instrument with which the government can confiscate part of the value of your money and, not incidentally, engage in deficit spending regularly. You might argue that calculated inflation is a small price to pay for being able to float a chronic debt and sustain a deficit as needed. You might argue that your national debt is presently unassailable because American households, which on average have a negative savings rate and face unabatable credit card debt, are financially overcommitted as it is. You might be wrong. Habitual deficit spending and the resulting chronic national indebtedness, along with the corporate welfare mechanisms that aggravate them, are to blame for your misery: the federal government uses inflation and national debt to mortgage your personal assets and your public resources, respectively, as effortlessly as a corporation uses watered stock to dilute the value of your share holdings. Think what you will of Greenspan's former support of the gold standard, but you have to admit that he was correct in predicting the practical consequences of failing to provide an adequate store of value, and in identifying the welfare state as the primary beneficiary:

Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.

What he may not have realized then is that corporate welfare is just as likely a welfare scheme as any other.

It now behooves us to ask not only how this wave of abuse can be stemmed, but also how this sort of situation can arise even under the watchful eye of our elected officials. The answer is that, in the US, the Executive and the Agencies operate with considerable autonomy; many important decisions are often made away from public scrutiny, largely or altogether, and there is a vested interest on the part of large corporations to increase the autonomy, if not the stature, of these public servants. Consider the case of MAI, the Multilateral agreement on investment -- a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Those of you who have not heard of it should at least know that it was the culmination of attempts to transfer some important powers from the popularly elected legislative bodies to the executive officials of sovereign states and to give corporations the legal standing of sovereign states. Let me take a moment to explore the brilliance of these tactics.

• When decision making forums are sheltered from public scrutiny, executive officials can serve corporate interests with impunity.
• When corporations have the same legal standing as sovereign states, large multinational corporations have power over small sovereign states -- perhaps even those in which the company is incorporated.

Surely, you can give examples of an administration negotiating treaties that would be difficult to accept for a majority of citizens and impossible to ratify for most congresses; now, try to imagine a future in which the legislature is powerless to stop unfavorable or undesirable consequences of free trade arrangements that it did not have the opportunity to approve or reject. Surely, you can name instances of a corporation getting away with practices that a majority of citizens would condemn but which the courts are powerless to stop in the absence of adequate legislation or jurisdiction; now, try to imagine a future in which a corporation undertakes legal action against sovereign states for refusing to let it set up shop, or even for having laws and regulations that hinder it, such as strict environmental standards.

"That's not a problem," you say, "because Public Citizen told us about MAI in the nick of time." That's not the point; the point is that MAI is evidence of an alarming, long-standing pattern of behavior: as Noam Chomsky has said, our governments really are, and have been for a long time, trying to undermine democracy. Consider, as further evidence, the case of Australia's MIGA, an agency that predates MAI and obviates the "need" for it.

Now, the two leading candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, look at the issue very differently, saying that free trade creates jobs, without mentioning what kind and where. Actually, Bush has even said that it is the duty of the administration to "sell" free trade (on WTO's terms, of course) to US citizens! Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has said that he wants the US to withdraw from the WTO and that we should re-examine the premise of so-called "free trade" agreements. I was going to give you a reference to Nader's website with that last statement, as WTO/NAFTA was one of the three key issues on his home page until just a few days ago, but now it is not even in the issue summaries. What could this mean? I think it means that he has pushed one of his favorite issues into the background because he needs enough votes to get federal funding for his next campaign. And this, in turn, suggests that American politicians think that the US electorate is politically comatose. You can help prove them wrong: a strong showing by Americans on election day would tell US politicians and corporations and the world that Americans are still in control of their political system. It would be a great sequel to the Battle of Seattle, with a lot less violence and just as much press coverage. Realistically, you probably cannot afford to act as resolutely as José Bové, but you can vote.

When I think about US politics, I think of the fable in which a master presents some options to his student, threatening to beat him with a cane if he chooses poorly; the essence of the problem is that the student cannot choose any of the options presented to him without risking bodily harm. (You should now take a moment to discover how the student can avoid the beating and what the moral of the story is.) You can and should vote for the presidential candidate who will most closely represent your interests, as you have more valid options than the mainstream media seem to suggest: you can vote for George W. Bush; you can vote for Al Gore; you can vote for Ralph Nader; you can vote for Harry Browne; and you can vote for some other candidate (yes, there are more) though his name may not appear on your ballot. If you cast a so-called "useful" vote, you are supporting a system in which you have a lot less influence than you otherwise might, and you might get beat with a cane. Of course, if you don't vote, you have no voice, nor will you ever, and when you and I finally get beat with a very stiff cane, no one will hear us scream. Please, vote.

Yours,

Alejandro Gómez de Argüello

Then that's even more reason NOT to vote for Nader.

Nader and the Green Party's program of government intervention will cause MORE pollution, not less.

Because the problem with pollution in America isn't that no one cares, it's that we're using the wrong part of government to work on the problem.

The legislative and executive branches are fundamentally incapable of handling the problem because they are the problem. And Nader just wants to expands their ranks, not address how they deal with anything.

It's those same bureaucrats who can't be bothered to go after real polluters because they work for big government or big corporations. And somehow Nader thinks that if we make new laws and hire new bureaucrats that all of a sudden this problem will go away?

Don't believe me? Then check out who the number 1 polluter is in the US: THE US GOVERNMENT

If you want to reduce pollution, we have to stop using the legislative branch to handle the problem, and start using the courts.

The Libertarian solution is to haul polluters into court and make them pay damages.

It worked against WR Grace, it worked for Erin Brockovich (the real life person), and it will work much better than hiring more armies of bureaucrats and writing new arcane and silly laws.

Vote Small Government

Vote Harry Browne

I'm honestly boggled. How can any reader of /. vote for that anti-tech green-shirt Nader?

The man reportedly refuses to become computer literate.

Is this the guy who you think can be a leader in the 21st century?

Plus, he and his party want to tax you back in the stone age, all while claiming to be attacking "the rich" and "the big corporations". Want a clue? When he says "the rich" HE MEANS YOU

If you really want to rein in corporations, then rein in the government power they use to boss us around.

Vote Small Government.

Vote Libertarian

Vote Harry Browne.

As a scientist, I do not support the missile defense shield because it does not work.

Imagine:
As a scientist, Thomas Edison abandoned the light bulb because initial attempts to make one did not work.

I find Hagelin's comment here really lacking. He doesn't support a missle defense shield because we do not have a working one? He abandons searching for success because he thus far has encountered only failure?

If these are his only reasons for being against a missle defense, they are lame. He should provide a better, more candid answer here.

And I am not arguing here for or against a missle defense system. I am arguing for better reasoning than he provided in this answer.

BTW, have we seen the Internet-savvy Gore's answers here yet?

Vote Harry Browne!

All of these corporate attacks on your liberty, all of these draconian restrictions are being paid for by the money YOU spend on corporate-sponsored books, DVDs, CDs, VHS tapes and trips to the multiplex. If you want it to stop you need to re-orient your priorities and better target your entertainment dollar.

If you like movies, go to Atomfilms or head down to the local art-house cinema that shows truly independent work instead of the mega-mall. If you like music, go to mp3.com or use services like Napster and pay artists you like directly via Fairtunes or Paypal. If you are an artist, release your work to the public under the terms of the OPL and let the public know about your account at Paypal.

Don't spend dime one on anything for sale at Amazon.com. Use your local library instead. If you simply must have some piece of corporate media, buy it used.

The only power these pimps have is the power YOU give them. For the DMCA and everything else the RIAA and MPAA have done to your rights, and plan to do to them in the future, you must choke off their access to the cash they expect to have available to fund their ongoing attacks against you, your family and your children. Hollywood has had a terrible year, box office receipts are way off. Keep it up! Make the first decade of the 21st century a finacial Waterloo for them!

Every one of these abuses flows from the ability of corporate money to pervert your democracy, your birthright. Support alternatives to the corrupt two-party system. One week from today vote Nader or Harry Browne.

Night
Geek Goddess

Please note that the original author didn't say that the current method of rewarding people for their IP is necessarily the best one, only that they felt that honest work deserves to be rewarded.

Virtually all Libertarians (and hopefully, people in general) would agree with that statement, though Libertarians would also be quick to point out that what an artist thinks is just compensation and what the market thinks may be and often are two different things.

I personally feel that the anti-Napster musicians are being woefully short-sighted about the new technologies. Probably it will just take a few more examples of artists making it big without punishing the fans before the idea will really catch on.

PS. I'm voting for Harry Browne. :)

As well-intenioned as John McCain and his counterparts on the Democratic side (most of whom also support similar legislation) may be, we all know this isn't going to work. Either the software they choose will have its problems (which isn't the fault of the software, but of the bad, bad, evil English language for having words that look the same, but mean different things.), or the local implementation of the law is going to be spotty (Who gets to deem what's inappropriate?).

What this whole mess boils down to is that neither party, Democrat or Republican, seems to have a firm grasp on what it is that they're supposed to be doing. On the Dem side, most thought seems to be "Let's have the Government take care of folks wholeheartedly". The Repubs come out with "Let's make some laws, but let local jurisdictions sort out how they want to enforce them, and at what level of strictness". Neither of these approaches work, and neither is even remotely close to what's allowable according to the US Constitution.

I'm now convinced, after much disgust with both major parties and a lot of research into the issues, that the only real answer (and one which may not be a viable option, but I'm still willing to work on it, as much as I can), is to get the Libertarians into there. They don't have the perfect platform either, but they do have one overarching principle which rings very real to me: The Federal Government has specific duties, and they must only be allowed to do those duties, and no more. Everything else can be slugged out where it belongs, on the State and Local levels. At least this puts most issues in play where people can reach them - state and local legislators are far more approachable, and responsive, in my experience. Besides, the Libertarian party, for all the press they're not getting (How is Buchanan and Nader getting mentioned in the Gallup and Washington Post/ABC News polls, but not Harry Browne? In polls where he is included, he outpolls Buchanan and nearly outperforms Nader!), is the largest third-party in the US, and has more members currently in office than the other third-parties combined. That also impresses me.

Is kids having access to porn bad? Sure it is. Can the Federal Government legislate against it? Sure it can. Will that legislation do one bit of good? No chance in H**l, and we all know it.

And for those who aren't US citizens, this matters in the sense that, for better or worse, the US is the top dog driving the tech industry. The decisions made here will reach to other countries (as they already have with this seemingly insane new proposed treaty outlawing "hackers". BTW, can anyone actually show me one of these extremely dangerous cyber-desperadoes? I've yet to see one. I doubt they even exist). These decisions being made here are word-wide decisions, even if they don't appear to be so now. -Jimmie

He's already here, and running in the current election: Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate.

Their position on 'economic justice' calls for a guaranteed base income for everyone, a guaranteed right to a job, a 30-hour work week with no cut in pay, a hike in the minimum wage to $12.50/hr, free health care for all, free child care for all, federal revenue sharing to equalize funding of public schools, free schooling for all from K through graduate school, expanded federal housing assistance, and government ownership of residential properties.

I was both saddened and amused to find this bumpersticker, which has an eerily accurate and appropriate slogan, in their online store.

Is it just me, or do these people scare the bejeezus out of you too? Are most Nader voters aware of the Green Party's platform, which stops just short of all-out communism? If they knew, would they still be voting for Nader?

I'm voting for Harry 'Leave the Internet Alone' Browne.

No, I am in favor of government that does not tell me how to live my life, as long as I don't infringe on another's right to life or property.

How could it happen? It's already happened in the United States. Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.) As a result, despite there being no benefit to the person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.

They are able to accomplish this precisely because the government is too big, and too powerful. If the government would stay out of the free market, then corporations wouldn't be able to make laws with lobbyists and money. The government has no place interfering, and trying to babysit the economy.

Intellectual property is a sticky topic, and one on which the constitution doesn't have much to say. It would be best to rethink intellectual property and ammend the constitution - so that the government can adequately protect your right to property.

Since you're determined to talk about music, here's my take on it: There is a difference between the words to a song and a recording of a performance of that song. Once someone is dead, there is little point to granting him exclusive rights to sing a song he wrote - but, in my opinion, the recordings of his performances should remain his property, to be willed to his descendants. You must also consider that, in the performance of a song, there are many other people involved. From the engineers to the producer to the mixing engineer to the mastering engineer, all these people have "performed" with the artist to make the recording you are listening to.

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

If I am in the business of doing scientific research, it is hard for me to compete with someone who gets money from the federal government to do their research.

If I am in the business of loaning money, I lose business on the loans that the federal government provides.

Most federal social programs are bad for capitalism. For instance, Bush wants to spend a few billion dollars building government-sponsored internet huts, where anyone can come to get internet access. His reasoning is that there are many who cannot afford computers, and so they are getting locked out of all the technical innovations. I agree with him that it would be nice if everyone had access to the new technology, but government is the wrong way to do it. Capitalism will work it out. You see, there is a guy in california that put some internet connected computers in his laundramat, and customers can surf while they wash. I bet he's raking it in. I can tell you this guy isn't voting for Bush. Also, the people trying to develop low-cost internet boxes - the people targeting their products for this demographic - would now have to compete with this government program, which they would be paying for.

I know we're not talking Bush here, but I thought that was a good illustration of how government social programs harm capitalism - they make people fund things that compete with their own business ideas. Not too nice.

As far as the corporations go, it is a cycle. Say there is no government check on Microsoft. It grows big and powerful, becomes a big nasty monopoly. It squashes the competition. All of a sudden, there is no reason for it to be innovative (if it ever was :), and it gets fat and lazy. Then, out of nowhere, comes someone who is not fat and lazy, with a better product, and upsets MS's control. That is how capitalism works. Maybe it's a bit slower than the government charging in and busting things up, but it's better because it's powered by the people, innovation, and capitalism.

The record industry is already seeing some upset. It got big, fat, and lazy, and all it will take is someone to figure out how to really succeed with digital music (mp3.com, maybe, if they'd stop with this my.mp3 thing) to upset it and change things for good. The record industry as we know it will crumple when someone comes up with a system that pleases the consumer and feeds the artist.

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

5% doesn't guarantee Nader to be on the ballot in all 50 states. All it guarantees is that his party will be given a bigger chunk of our taxes in the form of political welfare (public financing). I'm voting for Browne because he is the only candidate that will let me keep my money and spend it how I want to spend it. I don't support Nader, Bush, Gore, or Buchanan yet they will be receiving 75 million dollars of out tax money. Browne has refused the matching funds twice now. The Libertarian Party has had their presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for the last three elections. It doesn't take 5%, but it does take a lot of hard work and local organization. Vote for Libertarian, Harry Browne

That is correct. The government should never have started babysiting these people, and it's time to stop. What should these people do? Seek help from churches, charities, and communities. These entities are better suited to meeting their individual needs and getting them back on their feet.

As for Social Security, Browne's plan is to continue paying Social Security to those already dependant on it. He will do this out of a privately (not government) managed fund filled with money saved from the trimming of excess government. Everyone is better off if we end Social Security. Refer to the study I linked to in my last post.

On Selling off the Environment: "I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused military bases, and commodity reserves." I am assuming this includes National Forest lands, BLM lands, perhapes even National Wilderness Areas. This is almost as bad as Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. Selling these lands in auction essentially to the highest corporate bidder could possibly close many of them to public use.

Yes. Individuals are better suited to care for those lands than the government. Been to a national forest recently? They're filthy. Besides, no one said that your community can't, as a community, purchase a large chunk of forest for your use.. Or your state, for that matter. But the federal government has no business doing it. (It is unconstitutional). Besides, private land management can provide better care for the land.

On closing down federal programs: "The federal government has no authority to be involved in any way in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, the retirement business, or anything else the Constitution hasn't specified." Say goodbye to federal loans for education, research grants for science, national forests and parks, etc. Say hello to corporate control of the environment, massive unchecked monopolies, and an increase in federal crime becuase without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?

Federally funded science is bad for capitalism. Federal college loans hurt capitalism also. If there is a market for low-interest educational loans, someone will step up and provide them. But no one can compete with the federal government. Look at the increasing privatization of telecommunications - never before has it been so cheap, or you had so many options to communicate. Federal interferance in all these things hurts capitalism.

The idea of "unchecked corporations" is stupid. Who keeps them in check? The consumers. It's very simple.

without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?

What "laws of the US constitution?" Last I checked, the constitution was a description of government and a bill of rights for the citizens. By the way, most of the federal government today is unconstitutional, so someone is not doing a very good job of "enforcing the constitution."

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/

/.'ers, hackers, and others interested in keeping unconstitutional federal
censorship away from the Internet should
strongly consider voting
Libertarian.

Have you actually read his stance on this issue? I don't think you have. Mr. Browne acknowledges that the federal government has no say in what you may do with your body. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion, therefore it is a state or local issue, to be decided by individuals much more accessible to you than himself or anyone else in Washington. Likewise, the federal government is not authorized to fund any non-military medical facility. So, yes, he would fight for elimination of such funding, regardless of whether the facility provides abortions.

He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess

Thank God. It's nothing but a pyramid scheme anyway.

when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay.

Then I suppose that, with lower overhead, the social security scheme must be paying out a lot more than a private investment account would for the same investment. Oops, wrong. By about an order of magnitude. 500 bucks a month isn't enough for even a poor person to live on. It's half the poverty level. It's chicken feed. And for this, we bankrupt our nation's productive citizens? Yeesh.

He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers

The Constitution doesn't authorize a scheme like this. If that doesn't interest you, just look at the waiting lists for medical care in such nations, and how many of their wealthier citizens end up just going to the US for health care.

I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.

I'm sure some reasonable plan will be put in place for the existing loans to be repaid under the same terms they were made. Don't think the feds will just call in the entire amount. And, although I'm sounding like a broken record, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to make such loans.

I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections

Not in the Constitution.

establishing a living wage

Not in the Constitution.

providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans

Not in the Constitution. And so, I suppose, those who have worked to get themselves into a position where they do have insurance will just have to eat that $10k a year, huh? "Too bad for you, you're successful. Not only will you have to pay for your own insurance, but you'll also have to pay for those who couldn't be bothered to provide it for themselves. Ain't America great?"

He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.

This is a state issue. My state already has such an option. Why doesn't Mr. Nader's?

Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there

Well, that's not me by a long shot. I would change that a little: "Browne is great if you'd like a chance to be wealthy at some point in your life."

Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.

Yes, I can clearly see on Mr. Browne's web site that he is in favor of maintaining the income tax on the poor and abolishing it for the rich. Oh wait, that's wrong; he actually argues for abolishing it for everyone. Sorry, it looks like you're wrong. Sure, the rich wouldn't pay any federal income or sales taxes, but neither would anyone else. A scam? Hardly. That honor goes to social security, the most successful scam in recorded history.

If Mr. Browne's plans were implemented, you could still be 100% satisfied with government. Any or all of the following could happen:

• You persuade your state to increase taxes by a factor of 10 and provide all those services and handouts and regulations that Mr. Nader proposes. The only difference you would notice is that instead of "United States Treasury," the checks you get - and send, and send, and send, would say "State of Fuckistan." I hope there's plenty of room for your state capital to expand.
• You fail to persuade your state to do the above, but some state - Oregon and Hawaii come to mind - is bound to do it, and you move there.
• You move (through our 100% open borders) to a nation such as Canada or Sweden that provides the type of government you favor.
• You realize that Mr. Nader's form of government is intrusive, hopelessly expensive, and outrageously unconstitutional, and that your newfound political and economic freedom is better than you had expected. You vote Libertarian for the rest of your life.

Regardless, you can still have what you want. The key is that I can too. Nice how that works out, isn't it?

Browne has everything to do with freedom. Browne wants to get the government out of your life, in all aspects. He is completely right-wing. He is the most right-wing candidate out there. His stance on drugs is right-wing: "Get the government out of it. Quit spending your tax dollars fighting a war that puts hundreds of thousands of nonviolent people in jail." His stance on abortion is right-wing: "The government has no place to make these decisions - get it out of the way." Should the government fund hospitals and clinics? No! Let private industry compete to offer you the best hospital or clinic. Let you choose which one to go to.

He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?

Social Security is a big mess. Why don't you read this study (take time to read the whole thing) and think about what it would mean for you to take all your social security taxes and invest them yourself, and make, say, 18% returns on your investment. Then, if you die at 66, guess what? Your family can inherit your savings. Under Social Security, you can work all your life, "saving" hundreds of thousands of dollars with the government, die at 66, and your wife and kids not see a penny. That's a bad investment, my friend. Read that link above. You'll be surprised at the numbers.

Furthermore, Browne is not going to dump people out on the street. If you're dependant on Social Security, you'll continue to get it until you die. Browne is not going to crap on these people - he's got a plan to take care of them.

Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.

Browne is great if you believe you can manage your life better than the government. If you prefer the government to be your nanny, protecting you from bad decisions and responsibility, vote for anyone else.

Browne is about people having freedom and taking responsibility for thier actions. And, by the way, if you read that article I linked to above, cutting things like Social Security will help the poor get richer.

Why don't you go read through Harry Browne's website. Read up on his ideas and his plans for implementing them before you spout off about things you aren't sure about.

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

Browne has everything to do with freedom. Browne wants to get the government out of your life, in all aspects. He is completely right-wing. He is the most right-wing candidate out there. His stance on drugs is right-wing: "Get the government out of it. Quit spending your tax dollars fighting a war that puts hundreds of thousands of nonviolent people in jail." His stance on abortion is right-wing: "The government has no place to make these decisions - get it out of the way." Should the government fund hospitals and clinics? No! Let private industry compete to offer you the best hospital or clinic. Let you choose which one to go to.

He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?

Social Security is a big mess. Why don't you read this study (take time to read the whole thing) and think about what it would mean for you to take all your social security taxes and invest them yourself, and make, say, 18% returns on your investment. Then, if you die at 66, guess what? Your family can inherit your savings. Under Social Security, you can work all your life, "saving" hundreds of thousands of dollars with the government, die at 66, and your wife and kids not see a penny. That's a bad investment, my friend. Read that link above. You'll be surprised at the numbers.

Furthermore, Browne is not going to dump people out on the street. If you're dependant on Social Security, you'll continue to get it until you die. Browne is not going to crap on these people - he's got a plan to take care of them.

Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.

Browne is great if you believe you can manage your life better than the government. If you prefer the government to be your nanny, protecting you from bad decisions and responsibility, vote for anyone else.

Browne is about people having freedom and taking responsibility for thier actions. And, by the way, if you read that article I linked to above, cutting things like Social Security will help the poor get richer.

Why don't you go read through Harry Browne's website. Read up on his ideas and his plans for implementing them before you spout off about things you aren't sure about.

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

I do not believe people do not vote because of apathy, or out of protest (at least not many). Most people that do not vote, do so because they realize that it in no way empowers them. In today political climate, it takes vast sums of money to have any influence at all with politicians. This basically breaks down to two groups with any political power at all. Special interest groups and corporations. So, if you vote, you are really voting for which corporations and special interest groups you wish to see run the country. I am voting for Harry Browne, because he actually represents my views. If the libertarians did not have a candidate, I probably would not vote.

Yes.

why dont you consider that possible well-run social programs, funded by everyone is a good thing(TM). Dont you see how selfish your opinion sounds?

Consume people?

Consume the planet?

Punish altrusm?

(i feel like a hippie ;)

You sound like a hippie.

Nader is a proponent of the current generation of eco-terrorists. Mistakenly assuming that there is some magical precious thing about the random way that life happens to be scattered about on the earth which must be preserved at all costs.

There is no 'balance', just circumstance.

They're not 'wetlands', they're swamps. Look over the last 200 million years of earths history. 90% of the animals that have ever existed are extinct. New breeds appear. Old ones that aren't effective competitors die out. That's not criminal, it's natural selection.

Man is one of the animals.

If he decides to clearcut a forest to plant crops, good for him.

For an honest analysis of environmental concerns, see Peter Huber's book 'Hard Green'

People strive according to their motivation. They are not 'slaves' of some imaginary system. I'm a software developer, working from my home, often more than 60 hours per week. No one's forcing me to do it. The pleasure of doing productive work is what fuels my motivation.

I could have gotten a state job, say in the department of walking slowly, and live the slack life, with plenty of time for Wheel of fortune.

I still spend a lot of time with my wife and two kids. It probably has something to do with not having a television set.

Yes, there are many corrupt facets of our current government. (e.g. civil forfeiture laws that allow everything you own to be siezed, on 'suspicion' of being a drug dealer, without even being charged, let alone convicted of any crime - all in the name of the War on Drugs)

Harry Browne is much more likely to rid us of them than Ralph 'I know what's best for you' Nader

The War on Drugs is a total failure, and there is hardly a soul in America who doesn't know it. Government can't keep drugs out of the country; it can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons. And yet the Democrats and Republicans go right on spending your money, building more prisons, authorizing more wire-taps and inspections of your private affairs -- just as though the Drug War was one of America's greatest successes.

I want to end the War on Drugs -- which will take the criminal profit out of the drug trade and bring peace to our cities once again. I also want to end the tyranny that's been imposed in the name of a "drug free" America -- something that has never been and never will be.

The War on Drugs is a total failure, and there is hardly a soul in America who doesn't know it. Government can't keep drugs out of the country; it can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons. And yet the Democrats and Republicans go right on spending your money, building more prisons, authorizing more wire-taps and inspections of your private affairs -- just as though the Drug War was one of America's greatest successes.

I want to end the War on Drugs -- which will take the criminal profit out of the drug trade and bring peace to our cities once again. I also want to end the tyranny that's been imposed in the name of a "drug free" America -- something that has never been and never will be.

www.supremecourtvote.org

You know, I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. That page is so f*cking biased it's funny. A few choice quotes:

Protection of Retirement Benefits: Right-wing Justices would allow businesses to deliberately deceive workers about the solvency of a benefit plan in order to save the business money.

Instead the left-wing justices would allow government to deliberately decieve workers about the solvency of a benefit plan (social security) in order to take more money

Another Beauty:

The Brady Bill: Another 5-4 vote struck down the part of the Brady Act that called on state officials to conduct background checks on people buying handguns until a national system was in place. Justice Thomas again argued that Congress has no authority to pass gun control legislation, and would go even farther than the majority in restricting Congress' authority.

Hrmm...government restricting libertys...right to keep and bear arms...double standard, nah...

And no, I'm not voting for Dubya, he supports as many idiotic government intrusions as the Democrats. I'm voting for Harry Browne.

Since you are considering a protest vote, but want nothing to do with Nader, Harry Browne the Libertarian candidate for President is probably right for you.

Harry Browne for President

I would argue that "their own advantage" includes protecting the long-term resale value of their land. Doing so would require that it be reasonably well-preserved. You can read a great deal of detailed rebuttal to your (implied) argument that those big evil corporation would destroy the land or that the government would protect it here. I, too, believe that preservation of our natural resources is important. And I don't believe the government will do so. Please bear in mind also that land would be sold to the highest bidder. That highest bidder might be the Sierra Club or some other protection group. You must ask yourself: is this land worth more to me than to $BIG_EVIL_CORPORATION? If so, you needn't fear anything, regardless of what others might do if they own it.

The only reason, IMO, that either of them say how they will filter/police/whatever the internet is to appease voters(duh). People want the government to come in and hold their hand and raise their kids, rather than work towards instilling values into their children. And when a politician sees that people are willing to let the government take over an aspect of their lives, they seize the opportunity, make some b.s. claim as to what they will do and hope that will win the most votes. Parents must take responsability for their children and stop wanting to take the easiest way possible.

Harry Browne in 2000 all the way

If you're anti-censorship, you are obligated by your own conscience to vote for Harry Browne. No other candidate - and very obviously neither of the two "main" candidates, supports a complete absence of all censorship. Mr. Browne believes that personal - and parental - responsibility is the proper solution, not government-enforced censorship. Furthermore, he recognizes that the federal government has no authority to censor anything, regardless of whether he or anyone else feels it's a good idea. Vote Browne. Vote Freedom.

Nader believes in a *maximum* wage? Face it he's off his friggin bird. Sure he recognizes corporations are out of control, but his solution is HUGE government actting with impunity as it completely FORCES socialization of the econonomy.

Not only does this NOT WORK, it will lead to complete domination of people in every aspect of their lives. 5000 years of history proves this. (The more privledge you give a ruling class the more they will abuse it)

I don't want that shit. I want FREEDOM!

Small Government
Personal Freedom
LIBERTARIAN

http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/

Here's the guy I'm voting for:

Harry Browne

Nader will replace the drug war with a new War On Income

Absolutely true. And there's no room for privacy under a policy of 100% Income Taxes for folks who make more than the Green's rather arbitrary idea of a decent income.

If you want to end the War on Drugs, and you want the government to keep its hands off the economy, there's only one vote: Harry Browne, Libertarian for President

"On the supply side, Governor Bush will improve interdiction and stop drugs before they reach our children. He will use better intelligence and surveillance to track and catch drug smugglers before they reach our borders." oh yes, wont somebody Please think of the children! As everyone knows, all the domestic policies of this country sould revolve solely around what's best for The Children(tm). And where have I heard this tactic of 'stopping up the flow of drugs at the border' before? hmm Reagan? Bush(sr.)? and now where is the money spent on those idiotic and completely innefective policies? thats right. wasted, gone forever. maybe it's time to rethink 30 years of useless prohibition, TREAT addicts and actually allow the citizens of this so called free country to do what they wish with their own bodies. ie. im voting for Browne

Libertarian candidate Harry Browne has answered this question on his web site.

There is a 60 second realmedia commercial available that gives a very quick overview of candidate Browne's position on the issue.

That would be Harry Browne, a noninterventionist. Tired of the US antagonizing other nations? Vote Browne.

You could vote for Harry Browne (Libertarian) or Nader (Green Party), Hagelin (Natural Law), Philips (Constitutional (religous))...potentially there are other smaller candidates in your locale.

There's an alternative to this Republicrat modus operandi, the Libertarian Party. Check out Libertarian candidate Harry Browne's website to discover his stand on important issues like the one's raised here. And before anyone jumps in with the "don't waste your vote" objection, consider what Harry has to say about that:

"If you vote for George W. Bush because you can't stand Al Gore, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement for every big-government program George Bush wants to inflict upon you. If you vote for Al Gore because you're afraid of the religious right, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement for all the plans Al Gore has made for running your life.

The only unmistakable vote you can cast -- the only way you can tell the politicians you're fed up with big government and you won't tolerate it anymore -- is to vote Libertarian."

If you want the government to take care of you, they will take care of you as best they know how. That leaves you with three choices: 1.) Teach them how to take care of you in the way you want to be taken care of (but folks with more time and money have better instructional methods), 2.) learn to live with what they want, or 3.) realize that they will never get it right and take care of yourself. The Libertarian Party is running 1400 canidates this election, and they all want you to take care of yourself. As radical as this sounds, it makes sense to a lot of us. Harry Browne is leading Pat Buchanon is lots of polls, and he's passed Ralph Nader in some. If you want to vote for government to decide what video games you can play, what movies you can watch , and how the internet should be made better for "the people", just vote for either Gush or Bore. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between them. If you think you could make *your* world a better place, visit this site.

Well, quite frankly, we have failed to prove them wrong. If they spew hogwash, and we vote for them anyway, aren't we idiots?

When will an engineer / computer science guy get elected president, rather than these marketing / legal / pointy-haired types?

When we vote for them, and not a moment sooner.

If you want common sense, I suggest you check out Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party. And, of course, vote your conscience, not your fears.

Even better question: "Are computer games any more fun now than they were 20 years ago?

17-20 years ago Infocom ruled the game scene, and I haven't played games as good since.

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

That's what Harry Browne stands for, eliminating social programs and social progress. Remember one of the individuals who will be suddenly empowered will be corporations. Think big-business is out of control now, wait till Browne gets his turn in office. Make no mistake about it, Libertarianism is the new Republicanism, just less Jesus. Just look at his views on abortion. He should just become Buchanan's VP.

Back to the real issue, the problem is in a debate when one person says something especially stupid (anti-net propaganda) its the other person's job to jump right on it. But Gore just smiled showing agreement. If this isn't the best reason to open up the debates to third party candidates I don't know what is. Toss the Lib, Green, and the Socialist and we'll have a real debate.

Info on 3rd party candidates can be found here:

Nader
Browne
McReynolds
Buchanan

Read up before you vote, please. show is hardly a place to find facts.

If you think that government is too big, vote Browne 2000.

In a changing and complex world, parents need an ally--an active government, on the side of parents, giving them the tools they need to raise happy, healthy, thriving children, according to their own values...

Some say we should take no action at all--just let children roam free on the Internet. To them I say: children are not miniature adults. They are vulnerable and impressionable, and we have an obligation to protect them from harmful words and images on the Internet...

Today, on behalf of President Clinton, I am calling for new legislation to require every school and library that applies for the e-rate to come up with its own plan for protecting children from objectionable Internet content...

What to do? Well, I'm voting for a candidate who supports my right to buy whatever games I want, play then whenever I want, send or receive any form of communication via the Internet or any other medium without being intercepted by government agents, rent or buy any film I want, and do all of this without paying any federal income or sales taxes. Sound good? If so, then check out Harry Browne. He's on the ballot in all 50 states and - I'm not 100% sure, but - hold your breath - I think he's actually read the Constitution at some point in time!

If you don't want your Net to be taxed (Gore) or censored (Bush), vote for the candidate who actually supports your views, not just the lesser evil of the two drones you may have watched last night. Blatant plug? Sure. Offtopic? No damn way. If you vote for Gore, you're saying that you support higher taxes (and censorship - Lieberman, anyone?). If you vote for Bush, you're saying that you support censorship (and higher taxes - come on, do you really see this guy resisting money coming his way?). Well...do you?

Why is this so different?

because everyone knows they're on a cell phone and cell phones are "cool."

Vote for freedom!
---

PalmOS has a TCP/IP stack, and PPP. I use it everyday.

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

I think the last bit of the article hits the nail on the head. Wearable computers aren't cool.

No teenage kid, college kid, soccer mom, or business man is going to stand in public with a finger in his ear, talking to his wrist.

This sounds like really really cool technology, but it's not going to be the "cool" thing to wear to the mall anytime soon.

wish
Vote for freedom!
---

Vote for freedom!
---