Slashdot Mirror

Wearing the big 'L' feels much better!

Libertarians have won local elections. Here's the list:
http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php

The complete list of 580 for the Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php

I browsed http://www.lp.org/issues/ and the ideas seem like they would work. Yes, it does seem to go opposite the Green Party or other parties, but the way the ideas are set up, would work in my opinion.

Like their idea of ending welfare, but replacing it with a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity. It's my guess that people benefit more from private charities than the government. Whether it's food vouchers from churches, or simply a t.v. news station asking viewers to help out a family that may need more money for an expensive surgery for a rare illness.

I think their ideas have to all be done, or not at all, for it to work. If they were to do some of it, and not all of it, it would probably fail. But I'm not going to discuss this as I need to research more.

Hypothetically speaking, if I chose to vote for a Libertarian candidate (not going to, at least this time around), and if enough people did it, the top two parties are going to have to change their views if they want to compete still.

There has never been a big libertarian presence in the Democratic party. Their entire philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the libertarian vision.

I think you've been reading too much propoganda :) The philosophies are not diametrically opposed, even if Democrats and Libertarians disagree on some big issues.

Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. Practically every democrat will agree with the philosophy presented at the top of lp.org.

I think Democrats and Libertarians differ in the treatment of rights-- I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others. A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people, but right now there are many problems getting in the way to achieve those goals.

Sadly, my experience with most people who call themselves "Libertarians" is that they care mostly about low taxes and want less government interference in their buisness affairs, and could care less if the government prevent homosexuals from marrying each other, or if a business business pays white workers more then black workers. I call these people "Business libertarians".

Surely you don't actually believe no one supports Bush? Don't vote Kerry because he's the lesser of two evils, vote Badnarik (Libertarian Party) or Cobb (Green Party) if that's what tickles your fancy.

The Republicans haven't stayed true to their platform for quite some years now. The grassroots party activists have great conventions and come up with a great platform, but then endorse candidates based not on how much they will advance that platform but on how "electable" they are. Foolish waste of time, GOP. It's no surprise that there's an exodus from the GOP to the Constitution and Libertarian parties, where people can be found that still stand by their principles.

The LP has nearly 600 elected officials in state & local government, hopefully more after this election cycle. Here's a link

Republican National Convention fell a week after the deadline in Illinois for candidates to be certified. Thus, if the law were to be followed, Bush would not be able to be on the ballot in Illinois.

The Republican response: Ignore the deadline 'cause we're important. Nevermind that we'd scream like little girls if you ignored the deadline for the Democrats or a third party. We deserve a double standard, because, uhhhh...well we do.

<voice type="record exec from South Park">

</voice>

Back to the original subject:

I believe that voters _should_ be informed in order to vote, but would not argue for any restriction requiring them to be informed--due to the almost certainty of abuse. Consequently, I do not think that people should be blindly encouraged to vote. Uninformed voters are too easy to manipulate.

I'll not be voting for either GWB or JFK, but I will be voting Libertarian, because I strongly support the platform--despite the fact that Badnarik has essentially no chance of winning. I'd rather not have my vote diluted by a popularity contest amongst people who don't really care who wins.

If I couldn't find a candidate I felt I could support, I'd leave the position blank, but I'd still show up and vote--because I believe it is important, not because someone told me it is.

-se

This guy may not fit your preferences totally, in particular I'm unsure of his stance on abortion, but check out www.badnarik.org and www.lp.org. Those are for the Libertarian candidate and party, respectively. The gist of his platform is smaller gov't and more personal freedom (which fits well with the philosophy in your last sentence).

I may be telling you things you already know, but others may benefit as well if I am.
It's hard to find a party that matches your personal values exactly, because there are just too many different people with different interests for that to happen often. I was raised conservative republican but a nonvoter until only a few weeks ago. I realized I didn't like either of the primary candidates, so I wasn't planning on voting this year either, until the Badnarik interview on Slashdot. I was impressed by his honesty, or candidness if you will, and even his defense of ideas that I don't agree with (such as no public land).

Check him out - he seems to match your views pretty well, and he also seems to have a good head on his shoulders.

Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist

That sounds like Libertarian propaganda to me.

P.S. I'm a firm supported of the Libertarian party and even more so Bash #4753

Seriously... Think about this. Druggies have already proved they'll pay just about any price to feed their habit. So, if you leagalize it, you reduce the cost of getting the drugs here, and selling them (black market goes away...). So, lets say the markup on your tyipcal drug is 17,000% from the black market. What should the markup be if the drugs where legal? Lets just say 500%, for arguments sake.

The government could charge a 100% tax on the profit, and the end user would only see a markup of about 1000% (17 times less than the current markup, for those who suck at math).

So, the druggies win (cheaper drugs). And the government wins (more taxes, less money spent on the worthless drug war). And the tax payer wins, provided the shills we elect don't siphon off all these extra funds into some type of 'special account'...

That, and I think people would be happier :D

"It's the primary function of a society to guarantee the welfare of the weak - not to guarantee free trade or maximum profit for you "winners"."

Actually the purpose of our government is and has always been to protect our rights and to preserve justice. While the Libertarian party may not support the right to free money they are very interested in creating functioning system of government in which we would (in my opinion of course) possess more freedoms than we currently do. More info @ http://www.lp.org/

You say this, yet your post has a link to the Libertarian Party, clearly a pro legal marijuana group* and hardly "lefties". Maybe marijuana is an issue for everyone.

* The Libertarian Party actually has some good ideas. I respect their "hands off" attitude towards social issues and their "hands off" attitude towards business concerns me. A pro LP person needs to explain to me how the LP would stop company problems like Enron, et al.

It would seem to me that Libertarians would probably prefer entirely privatized education; which would mean no school vouchers, and no tax money paying for education.

That might be taking it a little extreme, though.

Wow...I was just going to write a post that those who would argue that are probably the most extreme of Libertarians...that there are certainly moderate Libertarians, just as there are moderate Democrats and Republicans -- but after doing some homework, you are absolutely correct:

Solutions: We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions. We condemn compulsory education laws...and we call for an immediate repeal of such laws. Until government involvement in education is ended, we support elimination, within the governmental school system, of forced busing and corporal punishment. We further support immediate reduction of tax support for schools, and removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children.

From the Libertarian Party platform outline

I guess that's another example of where the Libertarian party and I do not agree.

The OKLP, in cooperation with the Green and Constitution Parties, is encouraging their membership to leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank.

http://lp.org/lpnews/0411/oklahoma-nota.html

Chip H.

FDR tried to alleviate the suffering...by instituting SS...that provided a public benefit.

Ok and what has SS turned into? A pyramid scheme that is looted by Congress. It's dying and needs to be replaced. Support Bush's plan for SS reform.

He did not make lies, half-truths, and political doublespeak an Executive Branch SOP.

Neither do the political candiates whom I trust and believe in. This is your opinion, not a factual argument. Learn to keep the two separate.

He did not slash corporate taxes, and the tax rate of the very wealthiest Americans, and then shift the tax burdeon onto the backs of the shrinking middle class.

Ahem. Did you not receive a tax cut? Thank you. And what's more, your argument here is predicated on the "given" that the Government owns all of everything, and that tax cuts "cost" the Government in lost revenue. I don't know about you, but I want to keep *more* of the money I make. I want to "allow" the government to take only that which is necessary to provide what the Constitution says it should--and not a penny more.

I can't respond as intelligently to the jobs overseas issue, I'm still learning about that. But I think it could be just a phase, frankly. Evidence #1 is when Dell had to "insource" their helpdesk because of customer satisfaction issues with the outsourced provider.

As far as the health of the economy goes, from what I can tell, the left is using historical figures and the right is using current trends. The left are in effect blaming Bush for the dotcom bubble bursting, which is pretty laughable. Bush is doing a "decent" job helping the economy to recover in a tough time, that's how I read it. The current trends are good, and that is well...good. Sorry, you can't disagree with this, it's an actual fact.

From all reliable accounts, one of the Bush administration's top policy goals was the invasion of Iraq, from before his inauguration...

Whoah Nelly! Now you're going a bit off the deep end. I think you have stepped from debate into the realm of fiction. When you get back to earth, let me know and we can continue.

The rest of your rant is characterized by unsubstantiated rumors, personal gripes, incorrect conclusions, and a disconnection with reality. Sorry, they did find WMD's...hate to break it to ya.

Do expect Bush to continue promoting religious organizations as the only source of welfare and social assistance.

Oh I hadn't heard that was something on his platform. I think this is awesome! Let the people help themselves!

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

From the LP's Poverty & Welfare platform.

• We're making America stronger.
• We're defending America's families.
• We're winning the war on terrorism.
• We're going to pass tough new laws.
• ___ is fundamental to our country's future.
• We're defending freedom.

Badnarik didn't resort to such non-answers in his Slashdot interview, but I'm pretty sure both Kerry and Bush will. It's not worth reading. I have written letters to them about various issues and I always get responses that don't answer questions but instead talk about "making America stronger", "safer", "whatever" without directly addressing the issue.

"Do you support education?" "Yes, education is essential to America's future!" Why do Americans tolerate such non-answers from national level politicians? That's really my question.

-bs

You folks from the Socialist Party really have no sense of humor!

If you and Michael Badnarik

a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to charity.... Would that not provide the safety net that you (and myself) wish for?

The libertarian platform says: "We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights." So a tax credit doesn't guarantee the safety net indefinitely -- because in theory, there could someday be no taxes -- although it would probably be a good transitional measure.

We need to nail this down ASAP. Finding some way to show genuine compassion for people in a pure theoretical libertarian framework would go a long way to bringing us into an alliance with the people who share our veneration of freedom of the individual, the left of the conventional left-right axis. Assurances of care in a libertarian system would also establish a framework in which the left could be truer to their own purest ideals; they could move to the center and let go of big government because the safety net would be there.

Libertarians have been unfairly associated with the right. (A lot of people hear libertarian and think "gun nuts" or "racists", that sort of thing, at least in my personal experience.) But who, in practice, sides more with individualism and freedom? Which side of the conventional debate displays more actual diversity? Radical libertarians have much more in common with the left than the right, and with a good plan, they would see this too.

How the fsck is this a troll? Apperantly, the truth hurts.

"My understanding of the libertarian party is they want no laws"
Your understanding of the Libertarian Party is very flawed then. Try visiting www.lp.org and actually reading what they believe.

"If I want to open a store and purposefully sell products at a price lower than wholesale"
Gasp, Think of all the poor unfortunate souls who are BUYING products lower than wholesale. Oh the Humanity!

One step ahead of you. But I would argue that having a presidential candidate does more good than harm by providing exposure. It shows that the party is large and well-organized enough to successfully campaign for the largest election in the country.

I'd be interested in seeing a position paper describing what the candidate feels the FRB does, and how it's removal would facilitate the goals listed below. Here's the official LP statement on economic policy:

Trade and the Economy
The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.

1. The Economy
Government intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American.

2. Taxation
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights.

3. Inflation and Depression
Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression.

4. Finance and Capital Investment
Regulation of financial and capital markets represses capital ventures.

5. Government Debt
We support a constitutional amendment requiring government budgets be balanced by cutting expenditures and not by raising taxes.

6. Monopolies
Government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. We advocate a strict separation of business and State.

7. Subsidies
The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity. We oppose all government subsidies.

8. Trade Barriers
Tariffs and quotas give special treatment to favored special interests and diminish the welfare of consumers and other individuals.

9. Public Utilities
We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges. The right to offer services on the market should not be curtailed by law.

10. Unions and Collective Bargaining
We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.

More specifically, look here for more information. The website article is merely fluff to appease the populace - I'd like to see some books written about this subject in great detail. So far I fail to see a compelling reason for this logic - instead, it is merely a list of various financial organizations that the LP would "eliminate" to allow "free markets".

I don't vote for one of the 2 "major" candidates. I vote for who I agree with.

People say "Why do you vote Libertarian when you know they aren't going to win?". My response is: "If everyone continues to think that, then of course they will never win. The two party system is a result of the fact that most people won't vote for anything outside of it because they "won't win" or they'll "waste their vote". It's a catch 22 that I don't subscribe to.

Chris

More along the lines of the centerest small government Libertarian. The anti Right/Left Wing libertarian that believes you can have both economic and personal freedom, you can have all the beliefs you want, right or left, just don't make the government enforce those beliefs on all. While extremist left could be considered Socialism/Communism, and extreme right would be Fascism, extremist Libertarian would be capitalist/anarchist. The old Socialist/anarchist Libertarian party developed into the liberal democratic party.

some quick links:
Wikipedia article
presidintal candidate
party homepage

The Libertarian party is, at least the way they portray themselves, definitely without a heart, anyone take a look at lp.org or any page on it and mostly what it talks about is abolish this or privatize that. The other pages attack the poor, the weak, and the saints, namely Mother Teresa, because she was "poor", but probably did more good than Princess Di.

The way the Libertarian Party talks about the poor make me sick, they blame the poor and the weak for every problem in this country and the other political party and even the private charities for giving to the poor and the weak. they have even called the poor and the weak "worthless" because of it.

Their solution? Natural Selection, of course, and let the poor and the weak, or as they call it, the "worthless" die off. This is after they have said that "We are not a party of survival of the fittest, but rather of survival of the kindest". Yet they want the people to not give to charities to help others? On top of that any libertarians complain that they don't have many follower, then they blame it on people "buying" into the two party system. Why would I want to vote for a party that calls people "worthless", isn't that being judgmental? The problem is here in the state of Indiana is that it's the 2 major parties have their candidates Bush and Kerry, then the Socialist Candidate, don't know his/her name, then the Libertarian Candidate, don't know his/her name, but yet the one candidate that I would support, but not on the ballet is Ralph Nader, he's better known than the LP candidate, and yet the LP candidate is on, but not Nader. I wonder why that is.

They even lie about Affirmative Action laws. All Affirmative Action laws do is tell the employer to interview as many "minorities" as possible, the reason for quotas are actually the choice for employers, it is not required by law to have quotas. Heck, Affirmative Action doesn't even mention "quotas" so there's nothing to be enforced, but, the libertarian party claims that quota's are mandatory and enforced.

The Libertarian Party wonders why they have an image problem? The answer is all over their own web site.

With minimum wage, I agree that too high of a level will hurt the employees and the customers as the cost of goods and services would be much higher to compensate for the losses, but put it too low or not have a minimum wage, then the employer can, and most likely will, have the wages very low, and maybe too low. coupled with the libertarian party's view on immigration that it should be allowed no matter what, and the fact that there would be no social services, it would be a market favorable to the employer. That would cause the wages to go down to next to nothing. Do you think they would hire more help because of the lowered wages? Do you think that places like McChoke 'n' Puke would lower their prices of their Big Mac to their customers? the answer to both questions would be NO. Businesses exist to make as much money as possible, when their costs go up and/or their profits go down, they try to cut costs by laying people off and raise their prices, but when their costs go down and/or their profits go up, the prices remain the same and hiring very few people, if any at all. True, someone could go to another job if they aren't being paid enough. But, what happens when all businesses do the same thing and pay next to nothing? I guess it would be that they start their own business. The catch, though, is that it takes money to start a business and a lot of it. If they don't have a house in their possession, they are out of luck. I guess there are private charities then, but, if there are a lot of people out on the street because they can't get a job to support them and private charities

The Libertarian party is, at least the way they portray themselves, definitely without a heart, anyone take a look at lp.org or any page on it and mostly what it talks about is abolish this or privatize that. The other pages attack the poor, the weak, and the saints, namely Mother Teresa, because she was "poor", but probably did more good than Princess Di.

The way the Libertarian Party talks about the poor make me sick, they blame the poor and the weak for every problem in this country and the other political party and even the private charities for giving to the poor and the weak. they have even called the poor and the weak "worthless" because of it.

Their solution? Natural Selection, of course, and let the poor and the weak, or as they call it, the "worthless" die off. This is after they have said that "We are not a party of survival of the fittest, but rather of survival of the kindest". Yet they want the people to not give to charities to help others? On top of that any libertarians complain that they don't have many follower, then they blame it on people "buying" into the two party system. Why would I want to vote for a party that calls people "worthless", isn't that being judgmental? The problem is here in the state of Indiana is that it's the 2 major parties have their candidates Bush and Kerry, then the Socialist Candidate, don't know his/her name, then the Libertarian Candidate, don't know his/her name, but yet the one candidate that I would support, but not on the ballet is Ralph Nader, he's better known than the LP candidate, and yet the LP candidate is on, but not Nader. I wonder why that is.

They even lie about Affirmative Action laws. All Affirmative Action laws do is tell the employer to interview as many "minorities" as possible, the reason for quotas are actually the choice for employers, it is not required by law to have quotas. Heck, Affirmative Action doesn't even mention "quotas" so there's nothing to be enforced, but, the libertarian party claims that quota's are mandatory and enforced.

The Libertarian Party wonders why they have an image problem? The answer is all over their own web site.

With minimum wage, I agree that too high of a level will hurt the employees and the customers as the cost of goods and services would be much higher to compensate for the losses, but put it too low or not have a minimum wage, then the employer can, and most likely will, have the wages very low, and maybe too low. coupled with the libertarian party's view on immigration that it should be allowed no matter what, and the fact that there would be no social services, it would be a market favorable to the employer. That would cause the wages to go down to next to nothing. Do you think they would hire more help because of the lowered wages? Do you think that places like McChoke 'n' Puke would lower their prices of their Big Mac to their customers? the answer to both questions would be NO. Businesses exist to make as much money as possible, when their costs go up and/or their profits go down, they try to cut costs by laying people off and raise their prices, but when their costs go down and/or their profits go up, the prices remain the same and hiring very few people, if any at all. True, someone could go to another job if they aren't being paid enough. But, what happens when all businesses do the same thing and pay next to nothing? I guess it would be that they start their own business. The catch, though, is that it takes money to start a business and a lot of it. If they don't have a house in their possession, they are out of luck. I guess there are private charities then, but, if there are a lot of people out on the street because they can't get a job to support them and private charities

The Libertarian party is, at least the way they portray themselves, definitely without a heart, anyone take a look at lp.org or any page on it and mostly what it talks about is abolish this or privatize that. The other pages attack the poor, the weak, and the saints, namely Mother Teresa, because she was "poor", but probably did more good than Princess Di.

The way the Libertarian Party talks about the poor make me sick, they blame the poor and the weak for every problem in this country and the other political party and even the private charities for giving to the poor and the weak. they have even called the poor and the weak "worthless" because of it.

Their solution? Natural Selection, of course, and let the poor and the weak, or as they call it, the "worthless" die off. This is after they have said that "We are not a party of survival of the fittest, but rather of survival of the kindest". Yet they want the people to not give to charities to help others? On top of that any libertarians complain that they don't have many follower, then they blame it on people "buying" into the two party system. Why would I want to vote for a party that calls people "worthless", isn't that being judgmental? The problem is here in the state of Indiana is that it's the 2 major parties have their candidates Bush and Kerry, then the Socialist Candidate, don't know his/her name, then the Libertarian Candidate, don't know his/her name, but yet the one candidate that I would support, but not on the ballet is Ralph Nader, he's better known than the LP candidate, and yet the LP candidate is on, but not Nader. I wonder why that is.

They even lie about Affirmative Action laws. All Affirmative Action laws do is tell the employer to interview as many "minorities" as possible, the reason for quotas are actually the choice for employers, it is not required by law to have quotas. Heck, Affirmative Action doesn't even mention "quotas" so there's nothing to be enforced, but, the libertarian party claims that quota's are mandatory and enforced.

The Libertarian Party wonders why they have an image problem? The answer is all over their own web site.

With minimum wage, I agree that too high of a level will hurt the employees and the customers as the cost of goods and services would be much higher to compensate for the losses, but put it too low or not have a minimum wage, then the employer can, and most likely will, have the wages very low, and maybe too low. coupled with the libertarian party's view on immigration that it should be allowed no matter what, and the fact that there would be no social services, it would be a market favorable to the employer. That would cause the wages to go down to next to nothing. Do you think they would hire more help because of the lowered wages? Do you think that places like McChoke 'n' Puke would lower their prices of their Big Mac to their customers? the answer to both questions would be NO. Businesses exist to make as much money as possible, when their costs go up and/or their profits go down, they try to cut costs by laying people off and raise their prices, but when their costs go down and/or their profits go up, the prices remain the same and hiring very few people, if any at all. True, someone could go to another job if they aren't being paid enough. But, what happens when all businesses do the same thing and pay next to nothing? I guess it would be that they start their own business. The catch, though, is that it takes money to start a business and a lot of it. If they don't have a house in their possession, they are out of luck. I guess there are private charities then, but, if there are a lot of people out on the street because they can't get a job to support them and private charities

The Libertarian party is, at least the way they portray themselves, definitely without a heart, anyone take a look at lp.org or any page on it and mostly what it talks about is abolish this or privatize that. The other pages attack the poor, the weak, and the saints, namely Mother Teresa, because she was "poor", but probably did more good than Princess Di.

The way the Libertarian Party talks about the poor make me sick, they blame the poor and the weak for every problem in this country and the other political party and even the private charities for giving to the poor and the weak. they have even called the poor and the weak "worthless" because of it.

Their solution? Natural Selection, of course, and let the poor and the weak, or as they call it, the "worthless" die off. This is after they have said that "We are not a party of survival of the fittest, but rather of survival of the kindest". Yet they want the people to not give to charities to help others? On top of that any libertarians complain that they don't have many follower, then they blame it on people "buying" into the two party system. Why would I want to vote for a party that calls people "worthless", isn't that being judgmental? The problem is here in the state of Indiana is that it's the 2 major parties have their candidates Bush and Kerry, then the Socialist Candidate, don't know his/her name, then the Libertarian Candidate, don't know his/her name, but yet the one candidate that I would support, but not on the ballet is Ralph Nader, he's better known than the LP candidate, and yet the LP candidate is on, but not Nader. I wonder why that is.

They even lie about Affirmative Action laws. All Affirmative Action laws do is tell the employer to interview as many "minorities" as possible, the reason for quotas are actually the choice for employers, it is not required by law to have quotas. Heck, Affirmative Action doesn't even mention "quotas" so there's nothing to be enforced, but, the libertarian party claims that quota's are mandatory and enforced.

The Libertarian Party wonders why they have an image problem? The answer is all over their own web site.

With minimum wage, I agree that too high of a level will hurt the employees and the customers as the cost of goods and services would be much higher to compensate for the losses, but put it too low or not have a minimum wage, then the employer can, and most likely will, have the wages very low, and maybe too low. coupled with the libertarian party's view on immigration that it should be allowed no matter what, and the fact that there would be no social services, it would be a market favorable to the employer. That would cause the wages to go down to next to nothing. Do you think they would hire more help because of the lowered wages? Do you think that places like McChoke 'n' Puke would lower their prices of their Big Mac to their customers? the answer to both questions would be NO. Businesses exist to make as much money as possible, when their costs go up and/or their profits go down, they try to cut costs by laying people off and raise their prices, but when their costs go down and/or their profits go up, the prices remain the same and hiring very few people, if any at all. True, someone could go to another job if they aren't being paid enough. But, what happens when all businesses do the same thing and pay next to nothing? I guess it would be that they start their own business. The catch, though, is that it takes money to start a business and a lot of it. If they don't have a house in their possession, they are out of luck. I guess there are private charities then, but, if there are a lot of people out on the street because they can't get a job to support them and private charities

The Libertarian party is, at least the way they portray themselves, definitely without a heart, anyone take a look at lp.org or any page on it and mostly what it talks about is abolish this or privatize that. The other pages attack the poor, the weak, and the saints, namely Mother Teresa, because she was "poor", but probably did more good than Princess Di.

The way the Libertarian Party talks about the poor make me sick, they blame the poor and the weak for every problem in this country and the other political party and even the private charities for giving to the poor and the weak. they have even called the poor and the weak "worthless" because of it.

Their solution? Natural Selection, of course, and let the poor and the weak, or as they call it, the "worthless" die off. This is after they have said that "We are not a party of survival of the fittest, but rather of survival of the kindest". Yet they want the people to not give to charities to help others? On top of that any libertarians complain that they don't have many follower, then they blame it on people "buying" into the two party system. Why would I want to vote for a party that calls people "worthless", isn't that being judgmental? The problem is here in the state of Indiana is that it's the 2 major parties have their candidates Bush and Kerry, then the Socialist Candidate, don't know his/her name, then the Libertarian Candidate, don't know his/her name, but yet the one candidate that I would support, but not on the ballet is Ralph Nader, he's better known than the LP candidate, and yet the LP candidate is on, but not Nader. I wonder why that is.

They even lie about Affirmative Action laws. All Affirmative Action laws do is tell the employer to interview as many "minorities" as possible, the reason for quotas are actually the choice for employers, it is not required by law to have quotas. Heck, Affirmative Action doesn't even mention "quotas" so there's nothing to be enforced, but, the libertarian party claims that quota's are mandatory and enforced.

The Libertarian Party wonders why they have an image problem? The answer is all over their own web site.

With minimum wage, I agree that too high of a level will hurt the employees and the customers as the cost of goods and services would be much higher to compensate for the losses, but put it too low or not have a minimum wage, then the employer can, and most likely will, have the wages very low, and maybe too low. coupled with the libertarian party's view on immigration that it should be allowed no matter what, and the fact that there would be no social services, it would be a market favorable to the employer. That would cause the wages to go down to next to nothing. Do you think they would hire more help because of the lowered wages? Do you think that places like McChoke 'n' Puke would lower their prices of their Big Mac to their customers? the answer to both questions would be NO. Businesses exist to make as much money as possible, when their costs go up and/or their profits go down, they try to cut costs by laying people off and raise their prices, but when their costs go down and/or their profits go up, the prices remain the same and hiring very few people, if any at all. True, someone could go to another job if they aren't being paid enough. But, what happens when all businesses do the same thing and pay next to nothing? I guess it would be that they start their own business. The catch, though, is that it takes money to start a business and a lot of it. If they don't have a house in their possession, they are out of luck. I guess there are private charities then, but, if there are a lot of people out on the street because they can't get a job to support them and private charities

Nader is a risk for Bush and Kerry. A lot of people are mad at Bush right now, and a lot of left-leaning people might also vote for Nader instead of Kerry as Nader is seen as more of a "Centrist".

In response to your write-in comment, write-in's are only counted in a manual recount AFAIK, and we all saw how fun that was 4 years ago.

I personally don't care about Bush, Kerry, or Nader, as I'm going to vote Libertarian for Badnarik. I'm not biased towards either "major" candidate; I'm biased against both. So either take my comments with a grain of salt, or take them with an extra weight of importance.

Chris

According to the results at the current moment, bush only has 20%, while Kerry has 72%. I guess the slashdotting brought in the liberal(progressive) crowd to the site.

I'm voting for Badnarik and the Libertarian Party.

Chris

[sarcasm]Fine, then let's do it the shititarian way, lets abolish Pell Grants, ALL Social Services, medicare, medicade, public education, state colleges ,public libraries ,public transportation or anything the goverment has it's hand in ,sell ALL public land to corprations, eliminate the military, eliminate ALL fucking police & file departments and make this nation a true Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival-Of-The-Fittest Nation. Like the Shititarian Party says, if you're poor, you're fucking wothless, and if you're worthless, you should fucking die.

In a Shititarian Utopia, the individual is the militia, If you can't afford to defend yourself, piss on you. If someone steals your personal property, get him/her yourself, otherwise, piss on you. If your home catches fire, put it out yourself, pay someone to do the job or go out on the street and die.

Also, in a Shititarian utopia, no one will be giving to charities because everyone that does have sufficent money to live will believe in "Survival-Of-The-Fittest" and give nothing. So yeah, Let's all go shititarian, after all, the poor, disabled and retards are worthless and need to be taken out of the gene pool, also, the rich does no wrong, but the poor can do no right, so fuck the poor.[/sarcasm]

FYI: The LP also opposses the minimum wage.

Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity.

6. Monopolies

The Issue: We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy.

The Principle: Anti-trust laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association.

Solutions: We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.

Transitional Solutions: We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

So basically, the way I read this is that the Libertarian Party opposes monopolies, but thinks that if they just turn their head the problem will go away. This follows a consistent pattern in the Libertarian philosophy - all monopolies are caused by the government and if we get rid of the government interference, there will be no problem. Which is absolute rubbish - An unregulated market won't result in a free market any more than a lawless society will result in free society. The reason is that the threat to freedom isn't just our government in particular, but all insufficiently checked power structures in general. When the church was large and unchecked it became corrupt and liberty was lost. When feudal lords became too powerful to be checked, or colluded amongst themselves, liberty was lost. When the corporate "communistic" states were left unchecked liberty was lost. And here in the US, when large corporations were left unchecked, they treated their workers as near slaves, and liberty was lost. Throughout the entire history of mankind, every unchecked source of power eventually became corrupted and attacked the freedoms of mankind. The entire reasoning behind a democratic or republican style of government is that we decide it is better to give authority to a body which we have some control over, and which will respect and protect our freedoms, than to have an authority imposed upon us which cares only for its own interests.

The market is the same. Collusion among oligopolies has nothing to do with government interference, and yet it restrict the freedom of the market. There are certain markets (utilities, etc) which by their very nature tend to monopolistic situations. And there are occasions where a company is simply lucky and talented enought that it monopolizes a market on its own. These situations occur naturally, and once a monopoly has been created, it is exceedingly difficult for potential competitors to break it, just like it is hard for peasants to overthrow a king - because all the cards are in the king's hand.

I strongly sympathize with the Libertarian desire to decrease the government's impact, and want to be a supporter of theirs. I don't like the socialistic leaning policies that the Democrats are pushing. I don't like the way the Republicans have been pushing through "National Security" bills that are eroding our rights (and which the Democrats are too spineless to oppose). I don't like the way

How can you even begin to be a viable choice if you don't have candidates across the board in a majority of electorial races.
According to this page in 2000 the party fielded 255 of 435 U.S. Congress candidates and 25 of 33 Senate Candidates. Over 1430 candidates ran under the Libertarian Banner in 2000. The LP runs twice as many other candidates as all other third parties combined.
And those numbers are a enough that we could have mathematically had a house majority.
But remember that a majority is not necessary to effect a change, a minority equal to the difference between the two statist parties would do a lot.

I would think that could mitigate at least somewhat the damage corporations would do with reduced government oversight. Whether it would reduce it enough to matter... I don't know.

Personally, I think Big Government and Big Business have their hands so far down each others' pants that any division between the two is artificial. The public should consider whether corporations that have to operate without government oversight but also without the benefit of pork might be preferable. It's not an easy question.

Libertarianism places much emphasis on the theory that individuals can pull themselves up by their bootstraps to success. With good enough education, the theory goes, even the poorest members of our society should be able to become wealthy entrepreneurs. Under this model, if you're impoverished, it's simply because you're not trying hard enough. But bootstrapping is a myth; even if it were possible (for many people it is just not), millions of people do not have the desire to start their own business, and simply want to make a fair and livable wage working their 9-5 job.

Because Libertarianism is even more conservative than Republicanism, impoverished people would be denied many of the resources they need to survive. Libertarians call for the dismantling of welfare, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and the reliance on private charities to care for our neediest citizens. Reagan gave us a taste of this logic when he all but dismantled the federal financial aid program for college students. The theory was that the private sector would step up and help our nation's students.

They didn't.

Instead, students and their families often face the burden of massive debt upon graduation, limiting their ability to start building their lives. The Libertarians point out that Americans already contribute over $125 billion to charity already. But Social Security alone contributes $535 billion to our citizens. That much cannot be generated from charitable contributions, even if the tax benefit is increased.

If Libertarians such as yourself had their way, our nation's poor would sink even deeper into poverty and debt while our nation's wealthy would grow wealthier and wealthier. Sure, the rich would donate to private charities to lessen their tax burden--but less "sexy" charities would suffer. Would you rather give money to a charity for mentally disabled homeless people (who now receive Social Security), or to Cancer research?

The role of government is to take care of its citizens, and ensure that we do the right things for society. Private corporations and organizations have no such goals, and cannot be entrusted with such responsibilities. If Libertarians had their way, the government would step back and let people sink or swim. This is short-sighted, cynical and above all, cruel.

Which brings me to my question, Mr. Badnarik: If the government is there to care for its citizens, why do you want to outsource this responsibility to the private sector, which has no real incentive to work for the public good? In short, where is the compassion?

Sincerely, Ben Syverson

While I can see your argument, the USPS must exist; it is mandated in the United States Constitution.

Well, not according to the Libertarian Party, They would like to have it privatized, or maybe have it abolished.

One of the reasons 3rd parties often fail to obtain a significant portion of the vote is that they tend to take on extremist views. Your own party, for example, recommends extreme policies such as turning environmental protection over to corporations, and legalizing drugs.

The problem is that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle on the policital spectrum (or near the origin of your own two-axis spectrum), and both of the major parties cater to those Centrists by doing their best to appear Moderate/Centrist regardless of their actual agenda.

How do you plan to lead your party toward a more Moderate viewpoint, and thus toward political power?

One of the reasons 3rd parties often fail to obtain a significant portion of the vote is that they tend to take on extremist views. Your own party, for example, recommends extreme policies such as turning environmental protection over to corporations, and legalizing drugs.

The problem is that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle on the policital spectrum (or near the origin of your own two-axis spectrum), and both of the major parties cater to those Centrists by doing their best to appear Moderate/Centrist regardless of their actual agenda.

How do you plan to lead your party toward a more Moderate viewpoint, and thus toward political power?

Because you've failed to follow the links in the post. http://www.lp.org/

And before you answer about things like "character" or truthfulness, in defense of either side, be careful, as both side has lied plenty. (Yes, [insert Bush or Kerry here]-supporters, he's lied a LOT about things related to his service, both during and after.)

How about instead of voting for the lesser of two evils (which still inevitably leave you with evil), you vote for "the party of principle": The Libertarian Party is the only political party that seems to not be afraid to give straight answers. Please take the time to check them out before casting your vote. The LP candidate this year, Michael Badnarik isn't afraid to answer the tough questions and give answers that aren't always "politically correct".

There's more than two parties in this country, people. Wake up and see that the Republicans and Democrats aren't concerned about anything other than maintaining their stronghold on the country.

You'd think Slashdot would be all over a candidate who can actually write code, but I suppose it's the two party system that's so entrenched that it's even prevelent here.
Well, Could It be Because don't have a heart?

The thing I don't understand about the Libertarian Party is that they want to give a dollar for dollar "Tax" credit for people giving to private charities, but yet they want to eliminate ALL taxes. Also in one article they are not for "Survival of the Fittest" but "Survival of the Kindest, then they turn around and Say that if you're not of the fittest, then in their eyes, you're worthless.

Also, I think it's because They Support Nambla, a very sick orginization. Heck I would vote for Bush before I would vote Libertarian.