Slashdot Mirror

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why just the Libertarian party? Why not other third parties too. Personally I couldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans in good conscience. But I couldn't vote for the Libertarians either. Check out all the parties that you can. Don't just latch onto the first one that's "Not Republicrat". That would be as bad as being in the "Not Bush" party.

There's David Cobb the Green Party candidate, Michael Peroutka the Constitution Party candidate, Ralph Nader the Reform Party candidate (no, I'm not kidding), and as mentioned, Michael Badnarik the Libertarian Party candidate.

Those are just the four parties I've heard the most mention of. If you don't like any of them, keep looking. If you're really interested in them, there are even Socialist and Nazi parties.

If you want a quick intro to the Green and Libertarian parties, search the videos on C-Span for the Cobb/Badnarik debate. It's very informative and gives you in a nutshell what the policies of the two parties are, and helps to highlight the problems of having just two major parties.

That's why I support the third party.

Right on!

Badnarik 2004

The problem with the classification is that the political beliefs human beings hold is not 1-dimensional. If you're wondering about Libertarians, they aren't left or right. Many libertarians would be considered far right wing. Many would be far left wing. Some are right in the middle. This quiz tests on two dimensions. There are possibily several major axis of idealology.

You have the following groups in the Libertarian Party:

Libertarian Socialist -- essentially for self-government (classical anarchists). With the basic idea that given their own choice people would naturally form a sustainable socialist societity.

FDR Libertarian -- could be considered a contradiction of terms. Basically we should have limited government, but a "safety net" for the poor, disabled and elderly is still considered necessary.

Market Libertarian -- very pro-business. Government should not support business explicitly nor should it interfer with business. Generally this group belives that healthcare and other necessities for life can be paid by those who can afford it. And those who cannot can easily be supported by charities. This assumes that charities will get more money if people aren't being heavily taxed.

I'm sure there are other groups that I'm not even aware of. But I believe these are the major ones. (With market libertarians being the largest group)

All of these groups tends to be "classical liberals". In the 18th century they would have been considered liberal, but now they identify more with conservatives.

Libertarians all tend to have very strong opinions about rights to personal property. Including the rights of your own body, which is your own property. Government confiscation of personal property is frown on by the LP. But different Libertarians take this idea to different extremes. For example, taxes could be consider confiscation of personal property (your money, leins if you don't pay, etc). Other Libertarians accept that some taxes would have to be paid, and they would only get paid if they were mandatory.

Another important belief by US Libertarians is the sovereignty of the US constitution. Almost without exception Libertarians are for the preservation of all rights granted by the constitution and against federal action that goes outside the scope of the constitution. (For example, creation of many departments that are granted some regulatory/law-making powers. like the FCC and FAA).

Beliefs that are not nearly universal are things like pacifism, the second amendment, prayer in schools, etc.

Instead of showing ID to stop terrorists, how about pilots have guns and just shoot anyone who jumps up on a plane waiving a bomb/knife/gun/whatever shouting "Allah Akbar!"

Perhaps we could make ID an option, if you want to carry a gun on a plane, you need to show ID and sign a waiver. Then not only can the pilot shoot the terrorists so can citizens and filght attendents.

You might think I'm kidding . . .

And maybe in a few months your job will be outsourced as well, and once you do, hopefully you will never be able to find another job again,
Occe that happens, don't get unemployment or anything, and once you run out of money and once you become homeless, don't go to any homeless shelters or any charities, because, according to you shititarians, Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival of the fittest. if your poor"Meaning if you don't make a 6 or more figure income a year" then piss on you, because you're worthless.

It does no good to try to argue with a shititarian/refuckican dog-eat-dog/survival-of-the-fittest troll. None of them have a fucking heart.

It does no good to try to argue with a shititarian/refuckican dog-eat-dog/survival-of-the-fittest troll. None of them have a fucking heart.

It does no good to try to argue with a shititarian/refuckican dog-eat-dog/survival-of-the-fittest troll. None of them have a fucking heart.

It does no good to try to argue with a shititarian/refuckican dog-eat-dog/survival-of-the-fittest troll. None of them have a fucking heart.

It does no good to try to argue with a shititarian/refuckican dog-eat-dog/survival-of-the-fittest troll. None of them have a fucking heart.

Cue the Libertarian/Republican Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival-Of-The-Fittest Trolls, claiming "the ones that are costing the $300 Billion a year is the poor, so the perfect solution is to eliminate the poor by letting them die off by taking their jobs away from them, after all it's natural selection, capitalism at it's finest. Besides the poor is worthless"

How the fuck is this a troll, oh, the truth hurts, doesn't it? The truth shouldn't hurt unless it makes you feel guilty. oh that's right shititarians/refuckicans don't have a fucking heart, The refuckicans believe believe the same way except that their unoffical saying is "If you don't work, you don't eat, if you can't work, well, piss on you, you're worthless and you need to die." and to them poor, disabled, not-white, homosexuals=worthless. Women to them should be barefoot and pregnant and should not have any fucking rights. The women to them should be under subjection to their husband, and they're not married to a man by a 35, then they should die because to them, they're worthless. So as the parent post said, Fuck the Shititarian and Refuckican parties.

It sounds like you are a libertarian, not a conservative. Vote appropriately.

Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/

The idea of trying to stick Trey and Matt into some political category is ridiculous. They make fun of everything and clearly show that they don't find anything beyond reproach.

Yes, I know they make fun of everybody--geez, I started my original post by saying that. Matt and Trey are cool enough that they can make fun of all sides of an issue, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own views.

As for sticking them into political categories--the only category I would stick them into is the category that at least one of them has already admitted to: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0105/parker.html

I live in a swing state (not one you mentioned). But Kerry should be leading in this state by 40 points, not the 3 he's currently leading by. He's screwed.

You might as well just vote for Michael Badnarik.

I'm sure someone has gone through and counted the jibs to jabs ratios, but if all you saw was them praising Bush, rewatch it. and I don't think the "I do kick ass" is meant as praise, I think most Americans that are anti-war wish we had a president that did NOT kick ass.

Matt Stone is a Republican and Trey Parker is a libertarian.

I saw an interview with Matt where he professed his Republicanism, and here is an article about Trey Parker's letter writing campaign and endorsements of Libertarian candidates.

Oh and their appearence in Bowling for Columbine? One thing about Michael Moore, if you agree with his views or not, is that he is extremely deceptive with his filmmaking. They didn't make the "History of the USA" cartoon that is in the movie. Michael Moore wrote the cartoon and gave you the impression that the South Park folks had done it by inserting clips from the real South Park in the rest of the movie, interviewing Matt Stone in the movie before the cartoon is shown, and having Harold Moss animate the cartoon in a style that mimics South Park's style. So the interview with the guys pretty much stands on it's own as "South Park and Littleton kinda suck." I don't know how you get "We're flaming liberals!" out of that.

They do tend to stick it to both sides though, I forget which of then said, "We hate conservatives. But we really fucking hate liberals."

Great! Now my calculator can be a munition!
Vote Libertarian if you think that's as dumb as I do.

It does no good to try to argue with a stupid libertarian on issues like drivers licenses on why it should be required "Like to help prevent deaths, remember, all it would take is one idiot that has poor vision and can't understand the rules of the road and cause a 50 Car pile-up on the interstate causing 25-50 deaths". Remember the fact that liberarianism=Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival-Of-The-Fittest.

The funniest thing about the Libertarian party is that the talk out of both sides of their mouths. They claim they are not about survival of the fittest. They even say that they have a problem with their image that is being portrayed to the American public making them think that they are a bout survival-of-the-fittest. I wonder why that is?

:Sarcasm:
P.S. If the Libertarians are against licensing drivers because it's not constitutional, let's go with what the Libertarian morons want, let's also abolish murder laws. There is no provision in the constitution providing safety. Besides He Who Would Sacrifice Freedom For Safety Deserves
Neither. So according to the Libertarians, if you feel that we need to have murder as a felony, then you deserve no liberty.
:End Sarcasm:

It does no good to try to argue with a stupid libertarian on issues like drivers licenses on why it should be required "Like to help prevent deaths, remember, all it would take is one idiot that has poor vision and can't understand the rules of the road and cause a 50 Car pile-up on the interstate causing 25-50 deaths". Remember the fact that liberarianism=Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival-Of-The-Fittest.

The funniest thing about the Libertarian party is that the talk out of both sides of their mouths. They claim they are not about survival of the fittest. They even say that they have a problem with their image that is being portrayed to the American public making them think that they are a bout survival-of-the-fittest. I wonder why that is?

:Sarcasm:
P.S. If the Libertarians are against licensing drivers because it's not constitutional, let's go with what the Libertarian morons want, let's also abolish murder laws. There is no provision in the constitution providing safety. Besides He Who Would Sacrifice Freedom For Safety Deserves
Neither. So according to the Libertarians, if you feel that we need to have murder as a felony, then you deserve no liberty.
:End Sarcasm:

It does no good to try to argue with a stupid libertarian on issues like drivers licenses on why it should be required "Like to help prevent deaths, remember, all it would take is one idiot that has poor vision and can't understand the rules of the road and cause a 50 Car pile-up on the interstate causing 25-50 deaths". Remember the fact that liberarianism=Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival-Of-The-Fittest.

The funniest thing about the Libertarian party is that the talk out of both sides of their mouths. They claim they are not about survival of the fittest. They even say that they have a problem with their image that is being portrayed to the American public making them think that they are a bout survival-of-the-fittest. I wonder why that is?

:Sarcasm:
P.S. If the Libertarians are against licensing drivers because it's not constitutional, let's go with what the Libertarian morons want, let's also abolish murder laws. There is no provision in the constitution providing safety. Besides He Who Would Sacrifice Freedom For Safety Deserves
Neither. So according to the Libertarians, if you feel that we need to have murder as a felony, then you deserve no liberty.
:End Sarcasm:

Be a Libertarian like me. It's all about the freedom.

I will most likely be voting for a third-party candidate

In case you're undecided about who you'd like to vote for, here's a few options:

• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Mickey Mouse

I will most likely be voting for a third-party candidate

In case you're undecided about who you'd like to vote for, here's a few options:

• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Mickey Mouse

I will most likely be voting for a third-party candidate

In case you're undecided about who you'd like to vote for, here's a few options:

• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Mickey Mouse

I will most likely be voting for a third-party candidate

In case you're undecided about who you'd like to vote for, here's a few options:

• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Party
• Mickey Mouse

This is because you have yet to hit America's favorite disease: Hypercapitalism (a.k.a. "predatory capitalism" or "looting capitalism"). Under Hypercapitalism, all money or property obtained (i.e. earned, defrauded or outrightly stolen) by a businessman is entirely his.

That would be anarcho-capitalism. Nobody outside of the crazy devoted followers of Ayn Rand (a.k.a. "Randroids"; people who follow the cult-building novelist of the 1960s/1970s) and Murray Rothbard (a major Austrian economist) would advocate such a system -- not even the economically far-right Libertarian Party.

What you are describing -- in fraud and stolen money/property -- is theft, pure and simple. Once theft becomes legal, anarchy reigns. No reasonable society will allow such theft to be legal, ever.

And when instances of it do occur -- as under the current Bush administration where Enron and Halliburton are concerned -- that is not capitalism by any means. That is "crony capitalism ," in which government agents (like Bush and Cheney) perform work which favors the economic well-being of certain people or businesses (e.g. the defense industry, the oil industry, etc.).

Crony capitalism is the government stealing from everybody (via taxation) and giving tax money to some politician's business buddies or passing laws which favor those businesses (like the DMCA, for the recording and movie industries). It is, in fact, similar to fascism.

It is due to our large federal government, heavy taxation (which allows the government to spend more and grow as a result, and therefore spend more on a politician's business friends amidst an ever-growing list of increasingly-vague budget items), and pork-barreling legislators that we have the problem of crony capitalism, and the current Presidential administration shows off the problem better than any in recent memory (then again, I'm a youthful 20-something).

Sigh. An obvious troll from a non-libertarian. Libertarians most certainly do not believe that everything should be privately owned. You might do some reading on the Libertarian Party's website.

I have a couple of pretty severe issues with the the Libertarian platform, which I finally got around to reading last night.

First, they oppose "victimless crimes". This means some changes that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Plutonium is a controlled substance in the United States, and an elimination of consentual crimes would make it uncontrolled. I want possession of plutonium to be controlled, frankly.

Second, the libertarian approach toward justice is somewhat different than that I approach. I view justice as a dissuasive mechanism, something that can be used to stabilize situations. Libertarians view it as a restitutive mechanism, a method of restoring the state before the crime was committed. I believe that this approach leaves crime profitable unless law enforcement operates perfectly and 100% of damaging crimes are caught.

Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.

Fourth, their platform on American Indian Rights -- the return of Indian lands to Indians -- is simply ridiculous. It might sound nice, and there might have historically been some nasty games play ed to obtain land ownership, but you can hardly kick people off of land where they now live.

Fifth, I utterly disagree with their "zero regulation" model of business. Their claims that all monpolies arise from government intervention is, frankly, wrong. I can't see how they intend to deal with natural monpolies, unless they expect to simply ignore them. They do not deal with artificial mopolies, which I can't believe the government directly causes in all cases...unless they want to also repeal all forms of IP, which will be, well, overly extreme in my book and almost everyone's.

Sixth, their "no taxes" model makes no sense. It's just ridiculous. We've tried not having *federal* taxes, and that just didn't work. The mind boggles at the thought of local and state taxes being eliminated. How do they expect to have a functioning government? Even they must allow for the operation of certain skeletal structures, like a judicial system, or their own rules will not be enforced.

Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!

Eighth, they propose deregulating the postal service. This would probably mean an end to mail that can reach anywhere in the United States, even if it reduced costs to the other people.

Ninth, I think that their policy on secession is stupid. Sounds very idealistic, but why doesn't, say, GM Seattle secede from the United States, and avoid paying business taxes? Their workers can still *live* in the United States and enjoy the no income taxes that the Libertarian party promotes. I just don't see it working.

Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a

Fact is in the current system voting 3rd party really is throwing away your vote and the two major parties don't really care if you do it.

That's not fact. Don't tell that to the 12% who preferred the Libertarian candidate in Mass to Ted Kennedy. And the 40% who could vote for anyone in the approaching Hoosier gubernatorial election.

immigrated to the U.S. in 1902.

That's 1905 according a page on Kerry's bloodlines. And you're glossing over his maternal roots, to my eyes deep in Mass and England.

The Green Party bothers me more than the Big Two combined. The Green Party is the closest you'll come to the complete opposite of my political principles.

Fact is in the current system voting 3rd party really is throwing away your vote and the two major parties don't really care if you do it.

That's not fact. Don't tell that to the 12% who preferred the Libertarian candidate in Mass to Ted Kennedy. And the 40% who could vote for anyone in the approaching Hoosier gubernatorial election.

immigrated to the U.S. in 1902.

That's 1905 according a page on Kerry's bloodlines. And you're glossing over his maternal roots, to my eyes deep in Mass and England.

The Green Party bothers me more than the Big Two combined. The Green Party is the closest you'll come to the complete opposite of my political principles.

And yet you guys still don't vote Libertarian. We've been saying for years that the FCC just continues to get more and more powerful, in addition to being an evil censoring draconian cesspool to begin with. We told you that no republicrat would ever take power away from them, and that it would continue to get worse.

But nooo, you wouldn't listen to me, "oh it's just a little bunny rabbit" you said...

I'm voting for Micheal Badnarik. Save the Bush/Kerry flamefest for another thread.

Nader?!? He isn't even going to be on the Ballot in enough states to have a shot at winning the election!

How about taking an honest look at what Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate has to say. You may disagree on some points, but at least it is moving to restore personal freedoms again.

Ryan
More Ramblings at: http://blog.rkware.com

"You all have a clear choice this November."

Do we? I keep forgetting that /.'ers convieniently ignore the fact that Kerry isn't repealing the PATRIOT Act.


Just because someone says "we have a choice" doesn't mean that they're voting for Kerry.

Wake up people!!!! There are more than two political parties!!!!! If you really want a change, you are never going to get it with a republican or democrat.

Vote for a third party... any third party, I don't care, just don't vote for a republican or democrat, because if you do, then you have no right to complain when things don't change, because you are too scared (or whatever reason people don't vote 3rd party) to change it.

Personally, I prefer the Libertarian Party. Their candidate this year is Michael Badnarik. Go read his site, and listen to the debates, you might be suprised to find that not all political parties (or candidates) are the same.

Actually, yes. To put it bluntly, the measures the currenly stated pricinples allow, such as as described in the platform, appear utterly inadequate.

As an single example, the impact that XYZ-Corp's completely unfiltered coal burning plant has only a de minimus impact on the breathability of the air over the 1.1 acre my last house was on. The platform seems to suggest that the laws should be altered allow me recompense or cleanup assistance. However, this neglects marginal cost of enforcement actions: to wit, the cost of my proving that it was XYZ-Corp's plant contributing to the unbreathability of my air, the time and resources that XYZ-Co spends on proving that coal ash is perfectly safe, and the time of the judge and lawyers spent arguing over this drivel. These non-zero costs largely act mostly as "friction" losses in the economic system.

Assuming that the public trust is not betrayed by politicians in power, the economies of scale provided by the fiction of "public property" make enforcement economically practical. There are obviously lots of other similar examples besides XYZ-corp. Libertarians far too often appear to ignore these economies of scale, the informational cost in economic transactions, the imperfect utility value of money and the existance of non-commesurables, the number of assholes already clogging our courts and spam-filters, and a number of historical hazards like abusive monopolies.

Furthermore, in a longer term view, I see very little in the current libertarian principles that encourage maintaining biodiversity, which is essential to making an ecosubsystem (EG, life on land) resiliant under climatalogical shifts-- which occur naturally even without human greenhouse intervention. Now, these shifts by themselves are unlikely to wipe out all life on earth, but it could easily remove the nitche for 50-100 kilo bipedal large-skulled mammals which (most days) I would find a Bad Thing.

Way already on the bus, man.

For US voters who don't know what The Libertarian Party is, here's a good 10 second summary.

Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.

FYI.

I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.

Not when it comes to intellectual property. Go to their webpage (or the the Cato Institute) and look up their position. Remember that idiotic Rand Institute article on the subject? I realize that Libertarians are different from Randians are different from the Rand Institute, but it's only an exaggerated case. They are so obsessed with the sanctity of property that they can't see that IP is 100% a government invention. (And that's ok, but it's counter to most other Libertarian ideals.)

Many Libertarians don't feel that way, I'm sure. But it's not the party line.

But I see no reason to expect that the Greens are better. Most Americans fought over who had an idea first in kindergarten, and have never grown out of it. Everyone I speak to about the issue thinks of things almost like the French system: Artists have moral rights over their works, and it is wrong to infringe on them.

Google isn't bearing easy fruit, so I don't know what the Green position is. I see this, which is promising. Iduno. That's a reason to think that maybe the Greens are better.

Second, voters are very unlikely to go from Republican to Libertarian.

This is, simply, not true! The only libertarian high level officials in the U.S. have all been republicans. Two term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a Republican, advocated legalization of all drugs, and promoted the non-agression principle. Congressman Ron Paul, M.D., the 1988 Libertarian party presidential candidate, is a "Republican," although he votes only for legislation if it adheres to his libertarian principles. Additionally, Jeff Flake, a very libertarian congressman from Arizona, is a Republican.

The libertarian party believes that we should eliminate essentially all taxation eliminate all gun laws and eliminate all environmental regulations

If you believe any libertarian would vote for Kerry, you are sorely mistaken! Understand what a libertarian is before you post, and mod this terrible bullshit parent DOWN.

Orrin Hatch is NOT a libertarian, nor is Bush, they are both conservatives, but there is, and always will be, a percentage of the republican party that is libertarian/classically liberal.

Name a SINGLE libertarian democrat in the congress!!!

Second, voters are very unlikely to go from Republican to Libertarian.

This is, simply, not true! The only libertarian high level officials in the U.S. have all been republicans. Two term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a Republican, advocated legalization of all drugs, and promoted the non-agression principle. Congressman Ron Paul, M.D., the 1988 Libertarian party presidential candidate, is a "Republican," although he votes only for legislation if it adheres to his libertarian principles. Additionally, Jeff Flake, a very libertarian congressman from Arizona, is a Republican.

The libertarian party believes that we should eliminate essentially all taxation eliminate all gun laws and eliminate all environmental regulations

If you believe any libertarian would vote for Kerry, you are sorely mistaken! Understand what a libertarian is before you post, and mod this terrible bullshit parent DOWN.

Orrin Hatch is NOT a libertarian, nor is Bush, they are both conservatives, but there is, and always will be, a percentage of the republican party that is libertarian/classically liberal.

Name a SINGLE libertarian democrat in the congress!!!

Second, voters are very unlikely to go from Republican to Libertarian.

This is, simply, not true! The only libertarian high level officials in the U.S. have all been republicans. Two term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a Republican, advocated legalization of all drugs, and promoted the non-agression principle. Congressman Ron Paul, M.D., the 1988 Libertarian party presidential candidate, is a "Republican," although he votes only for legislation if it adheres to his libertarian principles. Additionally, Jeff Flake, a very libertarian congressman from Arizona, is a Republican.

The libertarian party believes that we should eliminate essentially all taxation eliminate all gun laws and eliminate all environmental regulations

If you believe any libertarian would vote for Kerry, you are sorely mistaken! Understand what a libertarian is before you post, and mod this terrible bullshit parent DOWN.

Orrin Hatch is NOT a libertarian, nor is Bush, they are both conservatives, but there is, and always will be, a percentage of the republican party that is libertarian/classically liberal.

Name a SINGLE libertarian democrat in the congress!!!

That's false. Both faces of the Boot On Your Neck party hate the Libertarians, which is why they both cooperate to ensure Libertarians are never included in debates, that the mass media simply ignore the Libs as much as possible, etc.

Have you never read the Libertarian platform? Democrats hate it as much as Republicans to.

Far more often I read people spewing how Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, than how Libertarians are Democrats who have been mugged.

Bob-

I've come up with a system where my vote always counts. Except for when I was 18 and too stupid to know anything, I always vote for a third party presidential candidate. Usually that means Libertarian which almost always makes the cut in Georgia which makes it easier for it to come back next time. And in Georgia, every election year the percentage that votes Libertarian increases s little bit - a true virtuous cycle. They are the only party that compaigns in Georgia, they just had their national convention in Atlanta earlier this year. the Dems and Reps don't bother even though we are the ninth most populous state.