Slashdot Mirror

Vote Libertarian, who seem to be some of the only people that truly care about our freedoms given to us by the founders of our country.

Move.

Well your post made me laugh. :)

I AM a "Hardcore Libertarian screwball", I'm even proud of it! (plug: web site). And I've heard lots of politicians use the phrase "reduce the size of government", one example being Bill Clinton (who obviously didn't actually do that, but it sounded good to everyone at the time...).

Since no one is accusing Bill Clinton or Bob Dole of being "screwballs" or "anarchists", I'm not afraid to use that phrase.

But rather than calling members of political parties bad names, why don't you point out what makes that such a dumb thing to say?

But I'm glad you think I'm right!

I'm the bastard son of Ayn Rand and most of the Libertarian Party

Although, I think the LPs should tone down the "we just want to fire everyone that works in government" rhetoric. There are some good people doing good things in government we should do our best to make certain that their work continues outside of goverment. Any major change in society will hurt people unless it is done gradually over time.

With that said, I think I've been up too late figuring out my "basis"... If line 3 is greater than line 45 then multiply line 23 by .20 otherwise... skip the next section and go kick your local congressman's ass.

The problem is, it's not a tiny minority. Utah consistently elects senators that think this way, as does Oklahoma, and a scary part of the rest of the US. I believe it was West Virgina where a Judge got elected because he posted the Ten Commandments in the his court room, and promised to post them conspicously in the judicial building.

The population of Utah is 2,316,256 vs. a population of 288,368,698, which means that Utah represents 0.00803227 of the US. Less than one percent. And to address the real problem: If you are going to sit there and blame entire STATES, I think the real problem is that YOU are as intolorant as you claim conservatives are. I won't even get into more detail, your post speaks for itself in that respect.

(And since when have Ayn Rand followers been conservative? Randian philosophy is generally considered libertarian, strongly because it doesn't believe the "good community values" of conservativism.)

Libertarians ARE conservative on most issues, and more conservative than Repuplicans by a long shot. You should go read about them. Conservatism covers more than community values. Like I have said, I am not a christian, yet a conservative.

No need for further replies really, I have been nice enough to tolorate your intolorance against the entire populations of Oklahoma, Utah and West Virgina, but any further trashing wouldn't serve any purpose I care to participate in.

There is a solution.

Visit the Libertarian Party for more information.

Less government == more freedom

If they bring it to show their friends at class, they'll probably be suspended for bringing a weapon to school.

Sorry to rain on the funniest damn comment I've read in months... but that's the sad fact of "zero tolerance".

-S

So, you would have favored simply recounting and recounting until the vote turned out how you like it?

There are RULES to an election -- including deadlines and not trying to have the counters use ESP to guess what people intended.

As a Florida resident (at that time), and Libertarian who voted for neither Gore nor Bush, I've had enough of ignorant people bitching about the election.

1. The "Butterfly Ballot" was chosen by an experienced DEMOCRAT; used successfully, without incident, in several other areas of the country; was published beforehand in the local newspaper; passed a review of BOTH parties without challenge.

2. "Hanging Chads" were the best. Finally, Florida counties will get rid of the antiquated systems and get something a bit less prone to human error and manipulation. Voting is't tough, and there were people there to assist. Multiple rehandlings of paper punch ballots damage the ballots, skewing the actual vote. More recounts would have meat more UNCOUNTED votes as the ballots would have been damaged beyond proper use.

3. "More People Voted For Gore". Actually, I think the majority of Americans DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL! For those that DID vote, this ISN'T A PURE DEMOCRACY aka MOB RULE. This is a Republic, and the electoral system is much harder to manipulate than pure majority vote. It isn't the first time it happened, and it won't be the last time that a President was elected with less than a majority.

GET OVER IT! Both major political parties (Democrats & Republicans) are lying, sniviling, cheating, vote-whoring, ballot-stuffing scum.

Don't like it? Look at the maps where the votes were close (Oregon, Iowa, Florida, etc.) and organize voter education, registration and participation there. There IS another election coming up...

Check out http://www.lp.org/ for an alternative to the 2-party bullshit.

Yeah folks when a techno turd gets nabed /. pays attention.

This county is turning into a freak show.

For some unpleasant truths see..

Here,
Here,
Here,
Here,

For the solution go Here,

Say that again: anti-prohibition (not pro-drug). It's important to understand.

Why are the Libertarians against prohibition? It's really quite simple: Drug prohibition causes violent crime (from the resulting black market), corruption in law enforcement, wastes ridiculous amounts of tax money, and above all, removes the element of personal liberty -- and hence personal responsibility -- from the individual and puts it on "society".

In a nutshell, drug prohibition causes much, much worse problems than the problems it was intended to solve. See the "issues" section of lp.org for more info.

I struggle with the pro-drug perception (I should say anti-drug-regulation views) of the Libertarian Party. But it's hard to argue with a platform that wants MORE freedom - and no other party is promising this. Unfortunately, I still feel obligated to cast my votes for the most freedom-oriented Republicans (or Democrats), until the Libertarian Party has a chance of winning, but how can you knock the party that advocates more FREEDOM?

I liked their Quiz to see where your beliefs lie.

Unfortunately, this post will probably be added to my FBI file. :(

I struggle with the pro-drug perception (I should say anti-drug-regulation views) of the Libertarian Party. But it's hard to argue with a platform that wants MORE freedom - and no other party is promising this. Unfortunately, I still feel obligated to cast my votes for the most freedom-oriented Republicans (or Democrats), until the Libertarian Party has a chance of winning, but how can you knock the party that advocates more FREEDOM?

I liked their Quiz to see where your beliefs lie.

Unfortunately, this post will probably be added to my FBI file. :(

Until people start looking to alternatives to the two parties we have in place today.

Republicans and Democrats will keep increasing the size of Government, and it will intrude more and more into your daily lives. Does stuff like this really surprise anyone?

The Government has grown out of control, but no one does anything about it, too afraid they may "waste their vote".

You're wasting your votes anyway, quit voting for the two major parties and at least you'll be doing it on principle!

A form of government in which the people choose between one of two candidates selected Party leaders, the real authorities. Both candidates and both parties equally suck but hardly anyone will vote outside the two parties for fear of "wasting their vote."

Each Party is controlled by one or more Corporations Blatantly obvious libertarian advertisement goes here.

You clearly haven't tried reading one of the platforms chosen by the Democrats, the Republicans, the Reform Party, the Greens, the Libertarians, or any of the dozen other groups that run national candidates.

These are not trivial documents, and they're chosen at the same time as the party's official candidate (at the national convention). The candidates themselves also publish volumes of press releases and opinion papers. These papers might not be quite as pleasant the DPL platforms, but they cover more material on more difficult issues, and they're influenced by many more people. But then, given the development model of any national organization, could you really expect them to be as nice?

The Libertarian party website has a piece up titled 10 reasons not to go to war with Iraq. It's really an interesting read, whichever side of the debate you're on.

I happen to agree with most of what's said here, so I posted it here in hopes that others may find it interesting. I'd certainly like to see some rebuttal to those points.

When all is said and done, I sincerely hope that every one of our brave men and women return home safely. I also hope that as few Iraqis as possible, be they soldiers or civilians, are injured or killed.

Blood leads to blood.

The libertarian party thought so, too. Lots of people (myself included) put some money together to run a full-page ad in USA Today in response to the ONDCP's printed ad.

Read about it here.
The full-size PDF of the ad is here. It was definitely a hoot.

The libertarian party thought so, too. Lots of people (myself included) put some money together to run a full-page ad in USA Today in response to the ONDCP's printed ad.

Read about it here.
The full-size PDF of the ad is here. It was definitely a hoot.

...but for those who can change something with their vote I strongly suggest to think carefully next time before giving the wrong people a seat into the Whitehouse.

Voting for D/R duopoly losers is the sure way to drive these United States into more fascism and police-statism.

Just place a cookie with a four-year time-to-live on the user's computer.

You all may laugh at me, but with such a system the Libertarians would stand a chance.

My other idea is an html form in which every radio button have a value of "libertarian."

I suppose I'll just wait for them to realize that our existing for of voting control that keeps someone from voting twice could also be used in this situation.

Having a conscience sucks; being a hypocrite would kick ass.

Just place a cookie with a four-year time-to-live on the user's computer.

You all may laugh at me, but with such a system the Libertarians would stand a chance.

My other idea is an html form in which every radio button have a value of "libertarian."

I suppose I'll just wait for them to realize that our existing for of voting control that keeps someone from voting twice could also be used in this situation.

Having a conscience sucks; being a hypocrite would kick ass.

I'm worried that if, in the future, I expouse beliefs that are opposed to what the government believes, I will become labeled a "terrorist", and will have my rights unilaterally suspended.

Where was the outcry from the left when Clinton/Reno were attacking Americans with tanks and using FBI snipers to shoot American women and children? As far as I have heard, Bush has not summarily executed any Americans yet.

Apparently you are only concerned with your left-wing speech being oppressed by a right-wing government, while the reverse occurred for nearly a decade with nary a whisper from you.

Perhaps those of you on the right and left should realize that the Reps/Dems do not give a FU** about the Constitution or any ideals of freedom and liberty, and seriously examine the Libertarian Party.

could lose their citizenship when the govt. decides to declare a group like the National Rifle Association or the Libertarian Party a "Terrorist Organization?"

Do you suppose they have any documented guidelines for deciding when to classify a group as "terrorist?" If so, are these guidelines available to the public? If not, why not? Time for an FOIA request? Is the decision made by one person (The President) or by Congress or what? Can such a decision be appealed in court? Do the "accused" get the benefit of "due process?"

Hmmm... Food for thought, isn't it?

What party has as one of its main issues being the safeguarding of our rights and constitution?

The Libertarian Party is exactly what you're looking for. Go to their website, read the platform, and see what you think.

oh jesus christ

1. Some of the language for the first patriot act was written under the Clinton administration, probably to be put into one of his imfamous crime bills.
2. It was approved 98/1 (Feingold was the only one) by the Democrat's Senate, and 337/79 in the house.

Get off your liberal high horse, jackass, both parties want your soul.

Vote Libertarian.

Actually, because of their position on political corruption and campaign finance, the libertarian party and candidates regularly refuse matching funds, even though libertarian candidates have qualified.

Actually, because of their position on political corruption and campaign finance, the libertarian party and candidates regularly refuse matching funds, even though libertarian candidates have qualified.

Actually, because of their position on political corruption and campaign finance, the libertarian party and candidates regularly refuse matching funds, even though libertarian candidates have qualified.

No doubt we're going to invade Iraq to free their people and bring them democracy, right?

Bush let the congress decide, and they decided to let Bush decide.

And clamping the international price of petroleum forever has nothing to do with it, right? And funneling several hundred billion dollars through the defense industry while ignoring the growing crowds of unemployed has nothing to do with it, right?

Lowering Oil price will help the war on terror by hurting Saudi arabia (our real, not-so-secret enemy). It will also help the unemployed by helping the economy.

And giving the top 5% income bracket lots of new tax breaks and only giving the rest of us a few hundred bucks has nothing to do with it, right?

It was the same % across the board, it was a proportional tax break at worst, and therefore didn't "favor" the rich. Also note that this was approved by the democrats in the senate.

And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right?

where has the bush administration abused its power (show me reputable news articles, not hair-brained conspiracy theory)?

And suspending our rights to privacy and due process so we don't get in their way has nothing to do with it, right? And, and...

The largest violation of our civil liberties in the past 2 years was the patriot act. The patriot act was approved by 320+ congressmen and opposed by 42. In the democrat-controlled senate, it was voted 99-0 (I think Jeffords abstained). Please note this important fact about the patriot act: Some of the language of the act was written under the clinton administration. Biding their time, I suppose, for reason to instate it, or sneak it into another "crime bill".

The 2nd largest violation of our personal privacy was this new-fangled homeland security bill. This doesn't take that many more civil liberties away, it simply provides facilities to process the unconstitutionally-collected information about you and me. I'm amazed this bill got more press than the patriot act, being as how it pales in comparison.. Then again I'm not really amazed, the patriot act was shortly after 9/11/01. Your bi-partisan, legally-elected, deceitful, and lying representatives used this tragedy to blind you while they stole your freedom out from under you. Kind of makes you wonder what those poor people really died for...


I'm no republican, but I still don't see where Bush has done anything legally wrong. Morally, I think his signing of the Patriot Act was wrong, but no moreso than the overwelming bi-partisan support it obtained. It makes me sad to think that ousting 1 man wouldn't solve the problem with power-hunger and corruption in the US government. Not even the removal his whole administration or his whole party would fix it. Both parties must go.

One thing Republicans and Democrats will always agree on: Third parties are their worst enemy.

Vote Libertarian

(posted anonymously to avoid possible investigation)

I'm already voting for third parties. Of course, we need these same Congress-critters to enact Condorcet voting, so that such "protest" votes get noticed...

Eliminate regulations and mandates that make companies less competitive and cost jobs.

Thanks! I look forward to your reply!

Thank you for your polite reply to my post. However, I would like to point out the problems I personally see with Libertarianism. Please keep in mind that these are not some kind of preconceived notions. Some of my views agree with those of the Libertarians, but I don't think the advertised goals of that party are consistent with its platform. To me, Libertarianism seems like a platform that favors private corporations to the extreme.

As an example of what I see wrong with Libertarian politics, let's examine the page about the education proposal. It is basically the voucher system that has been proposed many times; it also shares the problems of the voucher system. It allegedly seeks to solve the problems of poor kids being forced to attend a sub-par public school by distributing tax money to private schools on a voucher system.

The advantages seem obvious. With the current system, private schools are typically known for their educational excellence. The voucher system seems to be capable of bringing this excellence to every child. However, this is not so.

Imagine a school system based on vouchers. Suppose that you are a low-income family. You have a voucher that you may spend at local schools A, B, C, and D.

Schools A and B are very selective, choosing only the brightest kids from the best families that could afford such an education even if the vouchers were not offered. Since they are private, they can use any criteria they want to determine eligibility, including family status and income as well as academic potential. They will most likely reject your child, because they will not want to contaminate their prestige with poor kids from ghetto neighborhoods. Even if they accept him/her, they will still charge too much (on top of the voucher) to be affordable.

School C is for the middle class. It is fairly large, and many children go there; it is comparable to a today's mid-to-upper-level public school. However, it has to charge a fee of $2000/year per student to deliver a decent educational experience. Remember, it does not get as much funding as a typical public school. Your poor family cannot afford this extra expense. Thus, your only option is school D.

School D is a mid-size school, composed mostly of poor students from ghettoish urban neighborhoods. It is privately run. It does not have enough teachers, and the ones that it does have are inexperienced, underpaid, and overworked. Many students who go to this school have problems. Unlike today's public schools, school D does not have significant funding. Furthermore, it is being run for profit, and 30% of the voucher money goes right into the pocket of a rich local businessman. Since there is no Dept. of Education, virtually nobody enforces minimum standards, develops the cirriculum, or oversees this school. Many of its graduates are unable to read and write, and none go on to college. However, you have to send your child to this school, because none of the others will take him/her.

This would be a typical scenario of a voucher-based school system. As you can see, it causes much more problems than it solves. However, Libertarians propose similar systems for healthcare, law enforcement, the justice system, and all kinds of other things.

As you can see, this system would heavily favor the rich and the upper classes and significantly hurt the lower classes. Negligible benefits may be provided to the middle class. Such a divisive system would propel any country that adopted it back into the middle ages, when the system of class division permeated every pore of society.

Although you would be paying slightly fewer taxes to the government, you would spend much more on the things the government normally gives back to you. No, the "corrupt politicians" don't magically suck up all the money they get. Probably around 95% of it is given back to you through direct and indirect benefits.

Also, I would suggest reading a book about the Great Depression. Before and during the depression, welfare was provided by private charities, exactly as you propose. It did not work very well; poverty was rampant and welfare money were scarce. The Depression was solved only through government intervention and direct government investment in the population through taxes.

In short, my beef with Libertarianism is that it aims to give everyone the same responsibilities. Do you think that a person with $50 million/yr income should pay as much/little for healthcare as a person with $10,000/yr income? Congratulations, you're a Libertarian.

Anyway, I do not want this rant to be insulting or degrading to you or your beliefs; I'm just trying to politely explain my disagreement. Please reply, as I'm genuinely interested in your take on this. Keep in mind that I'm not interested in starting flamewars, so don't assume I'm just trolling.

This is a collection of preconceived misconceptions. First, let's discuss "unnecessary government programs." Typically, these don't exist...

Well, that's your opinion. Without trying to get into a flame war... I'll explain my position.

I'm a Libertarian, so I feel that the government should be there to protect the nation, provide basic services (mail, justice system, etc). Not included in the list of necessary services are things such as: Public Schools, Welfare, Social Security and programs of the like. I feel that those government services should be better taken care of by non-government organizations, or eliminated all together. I know these are controversial topics, but that's my opinion.

Now let's address the other issue - the mistaken belief that a private company can save money and provide better services than a government agency. You are 100% mistaken on this count...

I agree that many companies are mismanaged. I realize now that I put down the wrong thing on this issue. I was refering to non-profit corporations. My main focus with this point (which I didn't explain in my original post, sorry about that) was government's role in services such as Welfare. In this area, locally based non-profit (and religious) organizations are much more effective at distributing aid to those in need. Those types of organizations are simply there to do good, and they don't have the type of overhead that government has, because many of the people are volunteers. So they can generally do things for cheaper.

The most common opposition to this point is that people are too selfish to give to these types of organizations. While it's true that no everyone would donate, there are many people (I have met many) who don't give at the current time because they are under the illusion that Welfare is enough. And as one can see, welfare hasn't exactly solved the problem. So, if Welfare was elminiated, people would be giving money to these more efficient, charity organizations. They would be motivated to do so because it's a tax deduction as well as the fact that it's the "right" thing to do (forgive the sweeping generalization).

Sorry for the confusion in my earlier post.

This is a collection of preconceived misconceptions. First, let's discuss "unnecessary government programs." Typically, these don't exist...

Well, that's your opinion. Without trying to get into a flame war... I'll explain my position.

I'm a Libertarian, so I feel that the government should be there to protect the nation, provide basic services (mail, justice system, etc). Not included in the list of necessary services are things such as: Public Schools, Welfare, Social Security and programs of the like. I feel that those government services should be better taken care of by non-government organizations, or eliminated all together. I know these are controversial topics, but that's my opinion.

Now let's address the other issue - the mistaken belief that a private company can save money and provide better services than a government agency. You are 100% mistaken on this count...

I agree that many companies are mismanaged. I realize now that I put down the wrong thing on this issue. I was refering to non-profit corporations. My main focus with this point (which I didn't explain in my original post, sorry about that) was government's role in services such as Welfare. In this area, locally based non-profit (and religious) organizations are much more effective at distributing aid to those in need. Those types of organizations are simply there to do good, and they don't have the type of overhead that government has, because many of the people are volunteers. So they can generally do things for cheaper.

The most common opposition to this point is that people are too selfish to give to these types of organizations. While it's true that no everyone would donate, there are many people (I have met many) who don't give at the current time because they are under the illusion that Welfare is enough. And as one can see, welfare hasn't exactly solved the problem. So, if Welfare was elminiated, people would be giving money to these more efficient, charity organizations. They would be motivated to do so because it's a tax deduction as well as the fact that it's the "right" thing to do (forgive the sweeping generalization).

Sorry for the confusion in my earlier post.

Stuck following the "Almighty Buck".

Just check out the Libertarian Party and see whether you agree or disagree.

Consumers' rights are pitted against industry copyright protection, with trillions of dollars at stake, said Tim Bajarin, president of Creative Strategies Inc., a Silicon Valley consulting firm.

You seem to forget that corporate money is worth more in this instance because they are more likely to "donate it to particular political groups."

Being a minor, my "comsumer rights" are worth less than $0. Those of you whose opinions are affected by this probably vote Libertarian anyways.

Or you could just vote Libertarian...
(though try to pick an actual libertarian, not an anarchist trying to be official)

Stuck following the "Almighty Buck".

Just check out the Libertarian Party and see whether you agree or disagree

Stuck following the "almighty buck".

Just check out the Libertarian Party and see whether you agree or disagree.

The Libertarian Party Website is a great place to get anti-gun control information.
They'll have studies, statistics, and a bit of rhetoric.
Some stuff I've seen there and in their monthly newsletter:
Rape and mugging of women went down in FL and other states after they passed a concealed carry law, but went up in the nation as a whole. (I don't know the exact numbers, or remember the other states mentioned). Their interpretation is that criminals are more worried, because an armed woman is a riskier target.
Cities like Philly and Chicago that ban (and sue) guns have higher crime per capita than cities like Dallas and Phoenix where gun owners are relatively free. (But it could be attributable to the region, socio-economic breakdown, etc.)
The basic logical statement that making guns illegal won't stop criminals from owning them, because they don't follow the law: that's why we call them criminals. (Like the "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" bumper stickers.)
It's not really related to crime, but one of the most popular arguments against guns is all the accidental deaths of kids. But the LP newsletter (and it might be on their site by now) had an article saying that bathtubs cause more child deaths than guns, as do buckets.

Please take not of who has the most lopsided and largest donations. Notice the movie studios at #1 and #3? Care about fair use at all?

I'm certainly not trying to make the Repubs out to be the good guys, but the Dems aren't going to save you from big money influence.

Real election reform

I got modded down for saying this last time (and linking to Libertarian "propaganda"), but why does everyone continue to belive that the government can do a better job at space exploration than the private sector? What the hell, I've got karma to burn, so I'll rant.

$40 billion. The space station isn't even done. Humans haven't left Earth's orbit since the '70's. $40 billion. It sickens me.

I suppose the argument goes something like, "Private companies won't fund altruistic space flight, so the gov't has to foot the bill." "Companies are too nearsighted; they wouldn't appreciate the impact of expensive space based R&D."

Well, I could care less about argument #1. If you want a "feel good" space mission, fund it with Space Tourism. I think Lance Bass has some seed money for ya.

As far as agument #2 goes: I read an interesting proposal by Harry Browne (LP candidate for U.S. President in '00): Instead of direcly funding a space agency, the government could hold a "competition". Set aside $X billion, and offer it as a "reward" for the company or companies that meet the stated goal. Hell, this concept should be considered for lots of "expensive" R&D things: Offer a few billion to the first auto company to break our dependancy on oil, for example.

I truly belive that if 50% of that government spending had been set aside as an incentive for the private sector to go to space, we would have seen an appreciable return by now. There has to be people that would love to figure how how to mine asteroids, efficently harness energy from the sun, etc. Instead we can't even launch a Backdoor Boy into space. I mean, aside from the occasional tourist, has there been any appreciable return from that $40 billion yet? Not that I'm, aware of.

So, I'll say it again, and I'll link to it again, and you'll mod me down again: Privatize NASA.

Nice try. See, I'm not inviting you to disprove me, I'm not even proving anything myself except that you're nothing but hot air. You can't just say something ridiculous and expect anyone to take it seriously. Nor so by calling me an idiot (sniff, tears).

As for what you have baldly asserted, you're out of hand dead in the water on the sovereign immunity. There are many areas where the federal government and states may be sued for statutory and constitutional violations, and yes successfully sued (they lose often as plaintiff, too). Civil rights, social security, contract disputes, taxes, criminal matters, and so on. The government can also choose to waive sovereign immunity, as it did in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Now, arguably sovereign immunity is overbroad, or the courts are biased towards the government (true to some degree), but it is populist claptrap to say you can't file suit or that you can't win a meritorious case.

As for the "green party," well, there are different ones in various countries with different things to say. But forget about the Greens and the rest of the parties. The fallacy you're falling into is that however wrong or corrupt the Greens or anyone else might be would never validate some other set of beliefs. Libertarianism has to stand on its own merits. Note that the Libertarian Party focuses more on constructive argument. Moreover, like the Greens and other parties, libertarians come in lots of different flavors. If I were inclined to try to discredit the lot of them by singling out some loonies, I would then be rejecting the civil libertarians with whom I agree.

Don't forget that even if you can identify a single theory of modern economics -- and you can't, part of why there are so many economists -- you have to prove further that economics is consistently right. They could all agree with each other (they don't) or even the smartest ones could run the show, but there would be no guarantee of success, just of more economic studies. Economists make terrible bets all the time; they're human.

I don't think you're a pure troll, as you probably fervently believe what you're saying. If I wanted to really disrespect you I would ignore you. However, you're coming up with nothing solid but your unsubstantiated beliefs and ridicule of others, and I think most of us learned in the schoolyard that doesn't make you very persuasive, except to people who already agree with you.

*

I guess this posting was about environmentalism. And that was your error at the outset: you assumed "environment" mean "Green Party." You also assume that anyone who is an environmentalist in whole or part is blind to the need for balance and compromise. Like zealots in other areas of political life, including libertarians, these people don't speak for the whole, and what they say applies to themselves alone.

Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.

Don't vote for a party just because the first few letters of their name are the same as the first few letters of the word "liberty," either.

Libertarians support the abolition of prescription requirements for the purchase of medications.

Libertarians call for the repeal of RICO statutes that allow police departments to prosecute organized crime.

Libertarians oppose involuntary commitment of insane people into mental hospitals. I guess they're hoping that all the paranoid schizophrenics of the world just check themselves in whenever they get around to it.

Libertarians call for the abolition of National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Libertarians oppose the right of parents to teach religion to their kids. (I'm really not making these things up; this is actually in their platform.)

Libertarians call for an immediate end to various municipal and state bans on smoking in public places. *cough* *cough*

Libertarians want to abolish the use of passports, both issuing them and requiring them at US borders.

Libertarians oppose the government's power to subpoena individuals or companies. (No more public hearings on things like tobacco company misconduct, I guess.)

Libertarians want all border control-- including immigration control-- abolished immediately and permanently.

Libertarians call for the abolition of the dollar as a unit of currency, and of all government-issued coinage.

Libertarians want to abolish the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.

Libertarians call for the abolition of all taxation, but also call for the prohibition of deficit spending. I guess they're planning to have a national "collection plate" day, or something.

Libertarians oppose antitrust legislation, which by the way is practically the only thing keeping Microsoft from coming into your house and eating your children. (Okay, I made that last part up. But we all know how important antitrust laws are in keeping Microsoft in line, even when the process takes longer than we'd like. Better than nothing.)

Libertarians want to abolish the Small Business Association. Just try to start a business without an SBA loan.

Libertarians call for an end to utility rate regulation. Be prepared to spend at least twice as much for your electricity, gas, and water as you do now.

Libertarians demand (not want, but actually "demand") the abolition of the EPA. Speaking of green....

Libertarians want to get rid of the FAA, the CPSA, the NTSB, and the FDA. From now on, landing your plane, testing your kid's toys, ensuring that your car doesn't explode spontaneously, and making sure your food isn't poisonous will be your own responsibility. Be careful.

Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?

I'm only about halfway through the party platform. This could go on all night. Don't be fooled by the Libertarians, guys. Some of their ideas seem to make sense, but deep down the party's position is extremist and completely nuts. Don't cast a single Libertarian vote in any election, major or minor, until you read their entire platform. I'm telling you, it's a hoot.

A rather long rant. Just because people don't have these absurd religious morals which ban everything which is pleasurable and harmless, doesn't mean they don't have morals.

That said, I myself don't see the need for morals. Society does not need morals. What society needs is some kind of universal agreement among its members as to what behaviour is to be allowed. I'll refer to Rawl's position here, and say that such principles should in principle be determined a priori with each person considering what is necessary.

Reduced down the most universal component, most poeple would agree upon the following general principle to govern all of society:

You can do anything you want so long as you don't violate other people's rights. As a corallary, nothing should be illegal unless it violates other people's rights.

Then all that's left to do is negotiate what rights we all think we need. Most people would agree that (in addition to the meager set of rights provided by the Amendments), the following additional rights should be explicitly granted (those who don't can live in some other tyranical society):

1. The right to sexual freedom. People should have the right to engage in any form of mutually consentual sex they like, so long as it does not violate the right of another person*.

2. The right to privacy (not explicitly granted by the Amendments).

3. The right to one's body. We shall have the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies so long as we don't violate other people's rights. This means that laws illegalizing prostitution, drugs, stripping, sodomy, etc. would be unconstitutional.

4. The right to freedom of religion. As a corallary, the right of freedom from religion.

5. The right to freely share information. A corallary to the right to freedom of speech. As a corallary to the right to freedom of speech, also the right of freedom from speech (that is, we shouldn't be forced to listen to what other people have to say). While freedom of speech demands the possibility to be heard (that is, anyone who wants to listen can), it does not demand that one necessarily be heard.

These principles are in short a summary of the Libertarian Party Platform.

As a qualifier, since I believe in the right to keep one's earned money, I do not support forced taxation. However, those who do not pay taxes should not receive the benefit of them.

Thus, since I believe that the only things which should be illegal are those which violate other person's rights, I don't think that biotech, nanotech, gene-therapy, genetic engineering, etc. research should be banned or prohibited, or even regulated beyond mandating that the research not violate anyone's rights (i.e., it shall not be done on non-willing "volunteers"). If people choose to volunteer for such research, that's their choice. As for safety matters (i.e., a contamination spreading), these should be regulated by direct responsibility. If you're doing research on a potentially deadly virus and the virus infects (and kills much of) the general population due to your negligence, you should be directly responsible -- that is, trialed for murder.

So, I would propose no regulations on new technologies. I only propose that people be held accountable for their actions, and have no shield from liability.

How does research into nanotechnology, biotechnology, gene therapy, genetic engineering, cloning, etc. violate your rights? It doesn't. It only bothers you because you find it disturbing, because you think its playing god. If that's so, fine, don't do it. But you have no right to force your morality on others.

* Person -- a human being that has been born.

P.S.: Morality is a meaningless thing, since what is considered moral in one nation is considered immoral in another, what is legal here may be illegal not less than a mile from here. The simple fact is, we made this morality bullshit up. We also made up human rights, but at least they serve a practical purpose of allowing us all to go about our own business with minimal interference from others. But this morality nonsense does nothing but make life miserable. "Morality" is the reason why children feel guilty about masturbation, a harmless activity. It's why women were burned at the stake for "being witches". It's why people feel compelled to be ashamed of consentual and harmless sexual activities (such as prostitution, homosexual sex, non-procreative sex, etc). And I don't think the religious right has any monopoly on stupidity. There's plenty of nutcase fanatics on the left to. A prime example is these PETA nutcases, who seem to think that society should alot a rat the same rights it alots a person. In fact, the PETA nutcases remind me of the foetus freaks: breaking into buildings and blowing them up because of their "beliefs". Terrorists.

Spending money on ensuring that everyone can go to a hospital when they need it, HOW IS THAT PISSING AWAY MONEY??

True, these programs aim to ensure that everyone has equal access to medical care. Unfortunately when it comes to reality, this isn't the case. Programs such as this provide equality, but the equality level is sub-par when compared to other medical systems. Also, these systems suffer due to the large amouts of beaurocracy that is inherently involved.

Uhm, do you actually know what communism is?

We are currently doing quite well in the area of corruption, and we are well on our way (thanks to both the democrats and republicans) to the 75% taxation.

YOU are one of those conservative youngsters.

Yes, I do consider myself a conservative. However, you must remember that conservativism is not fascism (a bunch of people have these confused in this discussion). I agree with the policies of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/issues/). That is the type of conservative I am, not a fascist.

Let's see what happens when your right to travel interstate is taken away because only terrorists and the military have to travel that far. Or when some cop runs your plates, connects to the national database of offenses, and sees that one time you set the high school bathroom trash can on fire, and decides to beat you and jail you as a possible offender. Or when the government disperses anti-war protestors at gunpoint ala the Italian Fascists.

These are all terrible things, however, they are not conservativism. They are fascism. I am not a fascist, I am a conservative. To see the kinds of things that I support, please visit the libertarian party website here: http://www.lp.org/issues/

You have no foresight and thus I conclude that you are a college student...

I do have forsight. I have enough forsight to see that if our country continues spending outrageous amounts of money on goverment programs that should be privatized, we are going to be seriously harmed. Government doesn't, and can't, know what is best for people. Government involvement in our lives can only harm us. By limited our freedoms to do with our money as we please (social security, welface, etc.) we are not able to effectively run our own lives.

True, I am a college student. But the fact that I am conservative and support the libertarian policies listed above, sets me apart from the vast majority of college students.

...whose parents were yuppie scum.

You obviously have no actual argument, since you are forced to resort to feeble attempts at insults.

While reading thru the comments for this topic, I noticed a lot of people talking about liberal v. conservative, Democrat v. Republican, and the two ideologies that they are supposed to represent.
I thought I'd interject a little flash of reality. There is really only one major political party in this country: the Get Reelected Party (called the Republicrats by Libertarians). Most politicians out there will add any rider they think they can get away with, if it will help them get more campaign contributions or more votes. Both major parties take millions in corporate bribes (Fritz Hollings, the senator from Disney, is a Dem), both support pet projects for their home districts that they can use in their reelection campaigns.
There isn't that much difference between the two big parties. Dems say they want to increase social freedoms, but they'll vote for the patriot act if it's in their best interest. Reps say they favor smaller government and more personal responsibility, but every president since WWII has increased the budget, size, and power of the federal government.
Until the Congress is forced to only create laws that fall within its Constitutionally limited scope of power, this kind of corruption will continue. And the only people who can force them are the voters, but they'd rather vote for the guy who tells the most beautiful lie.
For more info.

Libertarians In A Nutshell - As a party, Libertarians support the political philosophy of "libertarianism." This philosophy states that you, as an individual, know best how to live your own life. Not the government.

Obviously, you don't know a whole hell of a lot about Libertarianism or you wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations about us (yes, I am one) and our ideas. Not all Libertarians believe that we can one day just scrap police and fire protection, get rid of the entire governmental structure and leave people to fend for themselves. We don't want to destroy the world as we know it and replace with entirely privatized options. It's this kind of FUD that keeps the party down.

The LP wants to:
# Substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut all taxes.

# Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.

# Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.

# The U.S. government should defend Americans and their property in America and let the U.S. taxpayer off the hook for the defense bill of wealthy countries like Germany and Japan.

Stick to posting about topics you know. www.lp.org would be a good start to your reading.

Vote Green.

Vote Libertarian.

Just don't get confused and vote Libertarian National Socialist Green.