Slashdot Mirror

I don't want the government telling me what is and what is not appropriate for my children. I'll make that decision.

Then quite frankly, you really should not be sending your children to an institution where the government acts in loco parentis.

In other words, if you don't want the government dictating the way your kids are raised, don't let the government raise your kids.

And this is exactly why the federal gov't should not be involved in education in any way, shape, or form. Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is the federal gov't given authority to have any say in educational matters? Nowhere.

A Democratic president is expected to sign this into law. The Republicans no longer have this plank in their platform. Don't expect this to change any time soon. The Constitution party supports parental control of their children's education though. The Libertarians have a somewhat similar view. Limit the gov't to what it's actually allowed to do, and we'd be better off. Doesn't the Constitution matter any more?

We don't need vouchers. What we do need is for the federal gov't to not tax us for education in the first place. Let parents choose where their children go to school, and let them finance it directly, or at a county or state level. All the DOE is good at is wasting money while test scores continue to drop.

Does anyone else here think that the entire crusade of environmentalism has managed to hoodwink an entire generation into believing that technology is not the answer to all of out problems but is instead something we should mistrust and fear? What happened to our glorious dreams of Progress and a bright future that we had not so many years ago?

Unfortunately the more liberal elements that seem to be in power in most of the western world are pushing this idea, because it allows them to push guilt onto people, who then call for their governments to impose heavy legislative shackles in the name of the "common good". So much for the freedom which we are supposed to have in the Western world.

Only one political candidate in America was willing to make a stand and decry the scaremongering over the environment. The rest are only too willing to pander to the popular vote and spread their lies about global warming. See here for the truth.

While you would have to charge a significant amount for it because you'd have to recoup the money spent developing it, other companies could sell it dirt cheap because they have no prior investment to recoup.

Nobody would be likely to buy from you.

My ideal gene patent system: A company can patent drugs or processes that affect a particular gene for 5 years or so.

------------
The libertarian party

And since a lot of companies started expensive gene researching under the impression that they could patent the genes, it would be pretty cruel to reject their patents (to the companies and their stockholders.)

Perhaps a good compromise would be to limit the patents to 5 years or so?

-------
Libertarian party

As long as they don't give out any names, there is no invasion of privacy here. (As far as I can see, it's just a summary of internet usage for the school as a whole.) However, I don't believe that government should be involved at all here. Choice in schooling will only come from a completely privatized educational system.

copywrite law exists to ensure that there's an incentive for development. It costs millions to develop an OS, or a drug, or the design for a new car. If there was no protection for these, and therefore less return on their investment, there would be millions lost, and there would be *much* less incentive to innovate.

If you think that a company's product is useless or overpriced, then don't buy it. Nothing lost; without the copyright law, that option probably wouldn't even exist.

And if you think you can develop this thing and that it shouldn't cost money, go ahead and GPL it. Once again, nothing lost.

The only disadvantage is that if something is already copyrighted, and you develop it yourself not realizing that it already existed, you cannot sell it or even GPL it. Can anyone think of a way around this?

-----------
Agree with this? It'd pay to check out
http://www.lp.org/, the libertarian party.

As requested:

15 Libertarians were elected to local offices yesterday, as well as making a strong showing in several national elections. True, we may not have won the high-profile races, but it's more than just a "moral victory."

Harry Browne finished only slightly behind Buchanan, in fifth place, despite Buchanan having $12 million in federal funds to draw on.

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

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

wish
---

Damn, I shouldn't feed the trolls.

The "opposite" of socialism is not the religious right. The religious right deals more with fascism than anything. Your opposite is closer to the libertarians, which are the _radical_ right.

For a good example of why, hit this quiz and have a good look at the output

I would hardly classify Adam Smith, Robert Heinlein, etc, among the less bright.

The Libertarian Party, unlike other "third parties," is not just a cult of personality for one man, like the Reform party for Perot or the Green party for Nader. We are a real political party, running 1420+ candidates at all levels of government - local, state, and national. That includes 256 candidates for the U.S. House of Representative and 26 for the Senate.

So we are running more than just a "gasbag who want[s] make speeches that nobody listens to." Maybe you should do some research before you make blanket statements.

What third party? Libertarians hold over twice the amount of elected offices as the green party.. but you never hear about them because the media is so liberal... always seem to hear about the !%@^ reform party though..

www.lp.org

I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.

Have you seen Harry Browne??
"Fiscal conservativism yet social liberalism" pretty much sums up the main beliefs of the Libertarian Party.


Please do check it out, I'm sure you won't regret it, and it may even change your mind about the futility of voting this year...

-the wunderhorn

-the wunderhorn
#define OH_YES_INDEED 1

I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.

Have you seen Harry Browne??
"Fiscal conservativism yet social liberalism" pretty much sums up the main beliefs of the Libertarian Party.

Please do check it out, I'm sure you won't regret it, and it may even change your mind about the futility of voting this year...

-the wunderhorn

-the wunderhorn
#define OH_YES_INDEED 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote Small Government

Vote Harry Browne

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

The man reportedly refuses to become computer literate.

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

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

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

Vote Small Government.

Vote Libertarian

Vote Harry Browne.

In particular, the next President must make sure that the US Department of Justice and US law enforcement agencies have the resources to enforce our intellectual property laws.

I wonder if these are the type of resources he's talking about.

--

• Increase "defense" spending.
• Increase federal involvement in schools, requiring religious indoctrination, and determining which schools continue and which are shut down.
• Increase criminalization of private activities, requiring greater law enforcement spending.
• Increase prison terms, requiring more jails, guards, and prison uniforms.
• Provide more aid to "family farms".

The Republican party doesn't stand for a smaller government, they stand for a slightly different, but similarly-sized government, for which the lower-income citizens pay a larger share than they do now and corporate and wealthy citizens pay a smaller share.

The same goes for "freedom". All these idiots at my work have "Freedom First: Vote Bush" bumper stickers. If "freedom" is really your first concern you should be voting for someone else.

I mean, don't we want less government control over our lives? And less government beuracracy? I'm voting for Bush mainly because I don't want Gore's inflated government.

So... have you not noticed that bush would also increase the size and power of the Federal government, just in different ways and more slowly than would Gore?

If you really want smaller government, there's only one party that will provide that: the Libertarians.

________________________________________

But I don't agree that we should "fight Hard drugs" with law enforcement. Any kind of drug abuse is a medical problem and should be dealt with as such. Criminalizing victimless behavior only leads to an artificially high price for a product that is very addicting. In essence, the "War on Drugs" is creating crime, and encouraging people to spread the disease of addiction as widely as possible, in order to support their own artificially expensive habits.

Drug abuse should be dealt with by trained medical professionals, not police and courts. The various LEO's have a vested interest in supressing alternatives to the militarization of drug enforcement -- after all, we wouldn't need so many new prisons if we cut the prison population by nearly half, by releasing non-violent drug offenders. Not to mention the money they make on 'forfiture', which can be had merely by accusing property of a crime; not convicting an individual.

This is NOT the same as advocating "hey, heroin's fine, I think everyone should use it, and it should be availible from candy machines everywhere." Hard drugs should only be availible under a doctors' supervision, and only after other addiction treatment options have failed.
---

Find out more about your Libertarian Party!

• used the misspelled domain names like "guinnes.com" to get people to see his ads.
  
• traps users in his websites.
  
• has ...approximately 3000 domain name registrations allegedly held by [Zuccarini] (either individually or by entities such as Cupcake City, Cupcake Shows, Cupcakes, Cupcake Party, Cupcake-Patrols, Cupcake Movies, and Cupcake-Show, all of which are controlled by Respondent)
  
• has ...click-based revenue now approach[ing] $1 million per year.
  
• neglected to respond to any correspondence from the Arbitration and Mediation Center.
  

- boli

P.S. Yea, I know. "boli-sucks.com" blah blah blah

P.P.S. One more thing: If you want liberty, vote libertarian next Tuesday.

What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.

The entrenched two-party system that offers false alternatives between "liberal" and "conservative" is what's hurting this country. The republicrats rig the elections to shut out any other voices. They raise the requirements of ballot access when the Libertarians or Greens get on it; they shut non-Republicrats out of debates big and small.

What is "conservative?" By definition, and practice, it's the liberalism of the past. Or as Bob Dole said, "we have to stop this system where the democrats propose a bill, we vote it down and then phase it in over three years." The real choice is between freedom and non-freedom (slavery; corporate control; collectivism; big brother -- call it what you like). The problem with the two main parties as they they are always for non-freedom. Whatever they do tends to increase the power of government over our lives. Or it deputizes coporations to take on government duties (like tax collection). Vote for a party that things less government means more freedom, not one that thinks more government control is more freedom.

It's not the economy, stupid; it's not for the children; it's freedom! Vote for freedom!

________________________________________

That said, vote Nader.

Or Bush, if you really feel he'll be less inclined to regulate free speech on teh web, which has been mentioned on /.

Or Gore if you don't want to "throw away" your vote by voting for Nader.

Or don't vote, but know that you cast a vote by not voting.


Or, Vote Libertarian if you care about liberty and freedom, and getting government back into the role of being the government, not a nanny and adjunct of corporate America.

________________________________________

Instant Runoff Voting simply isn't the answer.

Besides, there are already nearly 300 Libertarians serving in office, including more than 20 right here in Massachusetts.

Now, the Greens, Reform, and Natural Law, can't say that. Nor can any of the other "wet dog" parties around the nation.

The future of America is the The Libertarian Party

DARE = Democrats Are Ruining Everything
DARE = Dumb-Ass Republicans Elected

The War on Drugs is a failure. So is DARE.

To end the War on Drugs, Vote Libertarian.

Actually, my favorite thing about DARE is when the cops paint confiscated cars with the DARE logos and such. I saw a 'vette painted that way once, and I had to laugh when I imagined the following exchange:

"Peterson, get in here!"
"Yes, Chief?"
"Peterson, your new cruiser is in. The good news, is it's a Corvette."
"Thank you, sir, what's the bad news?"
"The bad news is, we had it painted with that candy-ass DARE shit, so you better watch yourself in the squad room."

D.A.R.E. is a great program in ways. Kids need to know that using hardcore drugs is going to end up being very very negative... even death... lieing to them by saying things like pot are going to kill them, make them steril, etc. are just going to revers the effect ... once they find out you werent truthfull about one drug, it's "fu**k of DARE, hello crack"... ya see? As far as the war on drugs... did you know that under Clinton's Administration, over 3,470,545 people have been arrested for marijuana offenses... a drug that no matter how hard you try, cant actually harm you?! ... ugg. Stop spending the money on the war on drugs and spend it on giving every household in the states at least one computer & a email account... much more would come from somthing like that... ... I gotta stop this now, cuz I'm getting pissed off.
-- BryGuy

NORML

Libertarian Party

What I worry about is the blatant use of the word "hacker" in the articles. Yet another situation that will put a bad spin on hackers. No matter how many times we insist that the proper term to use is "crackers," they keep coming back with "hackers." Unfortunately, the general public does not hear about the good things that hackers do, such as this or this. If only the media would not blur the line between the two.

Oh, and did you notice that in the articles about M$, it almost sounded like they were talking about a country. You could substitute "nation" in for "company", and it would still make perfect sense.


Vote Libertarian. The only party that wants to treat you like a grown up.

It's been said before, but:

Vote Libertarian.

Support the EFF.

Support the ACLU.

Use encryption (someone post me a Linux link).

Call your representative.

Don't just sit there, do something. Put the right people in power and this crap will get fixed.

Just brilliant Mr. Browne. Only one question: Then why the heck are you in politics?

If you look into the Libertarian Party, you'll see that its history is full of people who run for an office, get elected, and then either shut down that office, or greatly reduce its size and tax intake. The other classic thing is to find one Libertarian on a city council, dissenting on every tax increase.

Mr. Browne doesn't even take the gov't funds he's "entitled" to in order to fund his campaign. He's very clear that he is in politics to restore the Constitution of the United States of America, which provides for a small Federal government with very limited powers. It does not grant the Federal gov't the power to create agencies like the IRS, the ATF, the DEA, and the INS. He just said on this very Slashdot page that the first thing he will do as President would be to free political prisoners. I mean, the man is fighting for freedom. Before you snicker at that, please take some time to answer these questions for yourself (use the Internet ... it will be a wild, and educational ride):

• How many wars has the US gov't fought in the last ten years? (Declared or undeclared.)
• How many people has the US gov't killed, both domestically and abroad, in the last decade? How many were civilians?

I have to pause here to say RIP, my friend, Peter McWilliams. Read Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do (free online, or also available at your bookstore), and think about the fact that its author died because the gov't stood between him and his doctor.

• How many political prisoners has the US gov't taken in the last decade while the prison population doubled? (If Harry Browne would free them and Al Gore wouldn't, they are political prisoners. Amnesty International considers them so.)
• How much property has the US gov't seized without due process in the past decade? In how many of those cases were criminal charges made?

This shit is enlightening, and painful, and shocking. It demands action. It's hard to open your eyes (red pill or blue pill, etc), but you have to sometime. If you're a White American, you are standing idly by while the gov't harasses, imprisons, and kills Black and Hispanic Americans for political points every day. They are doing this. It is a fact. People are dying. Families are being destroyed wholesale. Try and get used to it and then decide what you are going to do about it, if anything.

This is the perfect election to vote Libertarian. George W. Bush and Al Gore are such interchangeable bozos, it just doesn't make a difference if you "waste your vote" and we get one instead of the other. What counts is to send a message of protest, to show that there can be political change in the US, so that the 2004 election campaigns will be about real issues. Harry Browne is the candidate for President for America's third largest political party, and he said right here on Slashdot that he had a question that he'd really like to ask Al Gore and George Bush. He has not had the opportunity. A substantial Libertarian vote this November might lead to Mr. Browne or his successor being involved in the 2004 Presidential debates. By then, the media may have adjusted for all of its current infotainment leanings and we may have more actual journalism (why did David Letterman ask G.W. Bush the toughest questions he's faced so far?). You can make your vote actually count this November by voting Libertarian.

The important thing to remember here though is that the President doesn't have the power to force any system of government onto the states.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that Browne as Prisident would try to mandate state policy. He is pretty dead set against it. But the Libertarian Party has candiates for 1500 to 2000 state and local positions as well. In fact they have 343 in office now. I was making a statment about them.

he failed to give any answer to the question about the current electoral system.

Browne doesn't beleve in passing (or promoting) laws that violate the constution. So he may hate the electoral system, but were he elected he would not be able to alter it. It isn't a presendital power. So I'm guessing he doesn't want to waste time talking about what he won't change when there are so many things he will (given the chance).

Browne also fails to explain "Free Market's" naughty effect - monopolistic behavior such as that of Microsoft.

He talks about it on his web site somewhere. I don't agree with his answer, but I agree with his positions more then the other candiates, so (baring the unexpected) I'll be voting for him.

I agree with everything he said up to the "No income tax" part. I think that is quite irresponsible.

Why? Once reduced to it's constutional limits the federal goverment won't really need much money at all. It won't provide much in the way of services, but that's OK, we mostly don't use them now. Those that we do will be provided by someone else, probbably cheeper too.

The state goverments are more of a problem. The provide a lot more useful services. That means it would be much harder to live through a transition from public provided services to private provided services at the local level.

Browne fails to explain how a lot of people will survive in his vision. If wellfare system is taken off immediately, the country will no doubt be in chaos and violence. Simply put, some people will go out and rob if they don't have food in thier hands. This is more costly than wellfare.

He talks about it on his web pages. The short answer is private charity, which manges to do more for the poor now then the goverment does, and could do even more if people who cared actually had spare money to donate, and who would have to do even less for the working poor as theur pay checks wopuld go twice as far.

Overall, thought. I feel that at least we are not fed with bullocks. We got honest answers to problems without any moral references. That's what I like.

Good. Go visit his web pages. See if you still agree after you read in depth. Visit the Libertarian Party as well for more background.

You won't agree with 100% of his choices. I don't. But it is wonderful to find someonw where you agree with more then 20% of the choices!

...who are going to howl bloody murder that things like child porn and drugs are no longer prosecuted

This is the worst sort of anti-Libertarian FUD. Of course child porn would be prosecuted! Libertarians are:

• Anti-Violence. Child porn = violence against a child.
• Aware of the concept of adult consent. If you are consenting adults, a Libertarian govt would stay out of your bedroom and not think of telling you what chemicals you could introduce into your own body. They are also aware that a child cannot consent.

I'm not going to point out the reasons why you are an idiot.. however I will say browne is on 49 of 50 states. Pretty damn close I think.

Let me get this straight...

The above poster spends a good deal of time making many, many good points about the failings of the Libertarian Party platform. Failings that cause people who consider themselves libertarians (note the small "L") such as myself --people who want to actually go beyond sales-pitch catchphrases such as "Government doesn't work" and "My first question to nominess for the Supreme Court; 'can you read'?" and find out what a Libertarian presidency will actually try to accomplish should Browne be elected -- to question whether or not they plan to vote Libertarian this year.

And your well-considered and measured response is a two-sentence cheap ad hominem attack?

I really, really hope your reply is not the typical attitude of the Libertarian (note the big "L") voter or party member, because if it is the Libertarian Party will never, ever move beyond being a fringe party, and you'll have only yourselves to blame.

What's the current membership of the party, anyways? 40,000 or so? Kinda fell short of the mark that the LP's Project Archimedes, which boasted of trying to increase membership from 26,000 registered members to a goal of 200,000 "contributing supporters", was trying to reach. According to the LP's own news release in February, Archimedes was falling short of its mark and had only increased contributing supporters by 18,000 to around 39,000 (wait a minute, if you started at 26,000 and added 18,000, shouldn't that be 44,000? Where did 5,000 people go?). And that's counting "contributing supporters", which are distingished from registered party members in some unclear way -- I guess if you're giving the LP money, that's as good as actually supporting their principles.

(The same press release, by the way, claims that the goal of Archimedes is to reach 60,000 members by the end of 2000. Where did the 200,000 number go, I wonder?)

Maybe the LP had trouble generating support because people don't like being called "idiots" when they ask questions about the Party's actual plans for accomplishing its goals and expect more substance than regurgitations of LP press releases and position papers.

As for why your candidate isn't on the ballot in all 50 states, why is it that the Arizona Libertarian Party has split into two separate parties, with the party faction sponsored by the national Libertarian Party suing the Arizona Libertarian Party for the right to be the "official" LP of Arizona? And unsuccessfully, at that; the ALP is still the official party, and is endorsing their own candidate, L. Neil Smith, as the Libertarian candidate for President. (There's a thought; maybe the LP should fracture even further, and have 50 LPs each offering their own presidential candidates? The [Ll]ibertarian voters can write in the candidate that they feel is best...)

And doesn't say much about the LP's stance regarding "initiatory force" if they try to use the "meddlesome" court system to force the state of Arizona to recognize their faction as the "official" ALP, does it? Apparently the courts should keep their hands off of Microsoft, but heaven forbid that Arizona libertarians want someone other than Harry Browne as their presidential candidate!

Jay (=

I'm not going to point out the reasons why you are an idiot.. however I will say browne is on 49 of 50 states. Pretty damn close I think.

Let me get this straight...

The above poster spends a good deal of time making many, many good points about the failings of the Libertarian Party platform. Failings that cause people who consider themselves libertarians (note the small "L") such as myself --people who want to actually go beyond sales-pitch catchphrases such as "Government doesn't work" and "My first question to nominess for the Supreme Court; 'can you read'?" and find out what a Libertarian presidency will actually try to accomplish should Browne be elected -- to question whether or not they plan to vote Libertarian this year.

And your well-considered and measured response is a two-sentence cheap ad hominem attack?

I really, really hope your reply is not the typical attitude of the Libertarian (note the big "L") voter or party member, because if it is the Libertarian Party will never, ever move beyond being a fringe party, and you'll have only yourselves to blame.

What's the current membership of the party, anyways? 40,000 or so? Kinda fell short of the mark that the LP's Project Archimedes, which boasted of trying to increase membership from 26,000 registered members to a goal of 200,000 "contributing supporters", was trying to reach. According to the LP's own news release in February, Archimedes was falling short of its mark and had only increased contributing supporters by 18,000 to around 39,000 (wait a minute, if you started at 26,000 and added 18,000, shouldn't that be 44,000? Where did 5,000 people go?). And that's counting "contributing supporters", which are distingished from registered party members in some unclear way -- I guess if you're giving the LP money, that's as good as actually supporting their principles.

(The same press release, by the way, claims that the goal of Archimedes is to reach 60,000 members by the end of 2000. Where did the 200,000 number go, I wonder?)

Maybe the LP had trouble generating support because people don't like being called "idiots" when they ask questions about the Party's actual plans for accomplishing its goals and expect more substance than regurgitations of LP press releases and position papers.

As for why your candidate isn't on the ballot in all 50 states, why is it that the Arizona Libertarian Party has split into two separate parties, with the party faction sponsored by the national Libertarian Party suing the Arizona Libertarian Party for the right to be the "official" LP of Arizona? And unsuccessfully, at that; the ALP is still the official party, and is endorsing their own candidate, L. Neil Smith, as the Libertarian candidate for President. (There's a thought; maybe the LP should fracture even further, and have 50 LPs each offering their own presidential candidates? The [Ll]ibertarian voters can write in the candidate that they feel is best...)

And doesn't say much about the LP's stance regarding "initiatory force" if they try to use the "meddlesome" court system to force the state of Arizona to recognize their faction as the "official" ALP, does it? Apparently the courts should keep their hands off of Microsoft, but heaven forbid that Arizona libertarians want someone other than Harry Browne as their presidential candidate!

Jay (=

If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

Lots of people seem to feel this way. These seem people also seem to be the same people who think that government should be the arbiters of morality and that laws exist to make sure that people are doing the right thing.

"I'm not downloading kiddie porn, so everything is okay. The government can set up a vidscreen in my living room and I don't mind at all. Since I'm not doing anything wrong, what do I have to fear?"

The problem with this is that the lawmakers are no more or less moral than any in the citizenry. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the psychological fact that every person finds his or her own morality. What gives the government the right to dictate morality on the citizenry? Do you really want people like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy dictating morality to you? And what makes their morality any better than anyone else's?

This is why I think the only things which should be illegal are things which deprives other people of life, liberty, or property. For this reason kiddie porn is illegal, but drugs are not. Key words in my belief are "other people" -- every person should be completely free to destroy his or her self if they so desire as long as it's only his or her self that is destroyed by their actions.

This is why we need privacy. The government is simply not equipped to decide what we should or should not be doing. Nor can they adequately "monitor" anyone to ensure that they are living the "government-approved lifestyle." And it cannot be shown that the "government-approved lifestyle" is any better than any other lifestyle. The best that government can do is to make laws forbidding the deprivation of another's life, liberty, or property and then enforce those laws. If we allow government to do otherwise, then we are at the whims other other people who are neither more moral nor better equipped to govern than we are -- and they have the right to use deadly force to enact their goals.

There is a solution.

You are wrong. The link is from 1996, but Browne also qualified for matching funds this year.

25% of citizens 18-24 cannot name both major party presidential candidates and 70% cannot name their running mates.

People say this kind of thing with a shake of the head and a cluck of the tongue. But why should people give a fuck who these guys are? The government will be stealing your money and fucking you over next year no matter which golden boy of the Democratic Republican Party gets the big chair and all the photo-ops. People have other things to worry about in life, like how to make the rent from their after-tax income, or how they're going to find the time and money to regularly travel the 500 miles to visit their sister who's in Federal prison for the next 20 years because her boyfriend sold some pot to a friend of hers or something. Life is going on while G.W. Bush and Al Gore have their asses kissed by the media everywhere they go.

These fuckers are tyrants, and we're supposed to read up on their activities and even give a shit? No way. They spent almost every minute of their "debates" basically saying 'I agree with him, but I'll spend more of any future surplus on this issue than he will'.

By the way, if you have a non-violent friend or loved one in prison in the US right now (60% of the over 2 million incarcerated), keep in mind that Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party said that he would pardon those people on his first day in office. If they are actually addicted to a drug (most are not), they will get treatment, because a Libertarian government won't get between you and your doctor, even if your medical treatment requires that you take a maintenance dose of a "recreational" drug for the rest of your life.

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

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

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

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

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

• Crime
• Violence
• The most dangerous black market ever known to mankind
• Taxes, so they can buy more guns and hire more thugs to enforce their laws, and to keep innocent prisoners in jail, even those who have never sold a dime of weed in their life

Nevermind that the "War on Drugs" is the most blatent constitutional violation that ever existed. What I put into my own body is my own goddamn choice, thank you.

And you thought you lived in a free country.

Please, vote Libertarian and put an end to this madness.

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

Some of you are just as bad as those who will only vote for one of the two big parties.
You say "I'm not going to fall into a mold and vote for a Republican or Democrat, so by default i'll vote for Nader, the one you vote for when you want to be different."

Vote Libertarian! All the personal freedom, none of the communism.

I can say that "eliminate the separation of church and state" doesn't coincide with what I've heard and read of the libertarian position--indeed, one of the major flash points of that matter, public schools, would be made irrelevant if the government got out of the education business (where it has no right to be, anyway). Anyone caring to see the actual libertarian platform should head for the Libertarian Party web site.

All right. First, let me point out that I am absolutely fascinated by science and the many advances that have been made in the past few years. We're learning so much about the universe we live in through this research.

That having been said, I need to respond to your point about politics. Why should the governemnt be sponsoring this research? In the first part of your post you list all of the benefits that we get from the work that's being done in this area. Shouldn't these, and the clear potential for more down the road, be enough to convice some commercial enterprise to put up the money?

My point is... government isn't the answer to everything. If you want to support this research, why not reduce your tazes, so you can do what you like with your money? There are better ways to do things than government.

As Libertarians keep trying to tell people (see The World's Smallest Political Quiz), limiting views to Left vs. Right is completely wrong.

Browne is neither Left nor Right, he is Libertarian.

OK, I like in Massachusetts. There's not a chance in hell my vote will tip the balance from Gore to Bush, in fact Gore is certain to win by a landslide. We might as well hand those electoral votes over right now... which is essentially what the pundits do when they count electoral votes at this point in the race.

If you're a conservative who happens to think that Bush is a complete dolt (I know many who feel this way), AND you happen to live in a state which is solidly Bush turf, what the hell do you have to lose by voting Libertarian, The Constitution Party, or The Natural Law Party? It's not like you're going to hurt Bush by not voting for him, in your state he's going to win! This gives you some freedom to vote your conscience without potentially tipping the race toward the Democrats (who are the party I would vote for if my state were up for grabs).

My point is that only a few states are still undecided... if you live in one of then maybe it makes sense to vote "strategically". But for the most of us it's pretty safe to vote our conscience... me I'll be voting Nader because that's who I like. And I don't feel the slightest concern for the outcome.

BTW: the Reform Party main page is down right now, so I didn't exclude it out of any malice (though I do think Buchanan is a fascist); I assume that's because of the Buchanan rift in the party. Speaking of that, Buchanan taking over the Reform Party has only benefited the Republicans as it's basically killed a major contender party. Wonder if Buchanan was really a poison pill for the party... I guess we'll know if Buchanan re-joins the Republicans after gutting the party and leaving the entrails asunder...

Always vote for what you believe in, if you vote for someone because you don't like the other guy then you'll never get what you really want.

Vote Libertarian - http://www.lp.org

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

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

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

1. The Libertarian Party strongly supports the deregulation of encryption and other privacy ensuring technologies. They have even funded encryption cracking groups to prove that government laws which restrict encryption programs to only 64-bits are short-sighted, a violation of free speech, and a danger to Internet privacy.
2. They are vehemently opposed to invasive and unconstitutional projects like Carnivore.
3. Libertarians are opposed to all censorship legislation like the Communications Decency Act that threaten our first amendment rights.
4. They use opensource software - Linux and PHP on their website. While I'm not aware of any discussion of the topic, they are also the most likely to support the use of Open Source software in government and protect, if not contribute to, the Opensource community.

1. The Libertarian Party strongly supports the deregulation of encryption and other privacy ensuring technologies. They have even funded encryption cracking groups to prove that government laws which restrict encryption programs to only 64-bits are short-sighted, a violation of free speech, and a danger to Internet privacy.
2. They are vehemently opposed to invasive and unconstitutional projects like Carnivore.
3. Libertarians are opposed to all censorship legislation like the Communications Decency Act that threaten our first amendment rights.
4. They use opensource software - Linux and PHP on their website. While I'm not aware of any discussion of the topic, they are also the most likely to support the use of Open Source software in government and protect, if not contribute to, the Opensource community.

1. The Libertarian Party strongly supports the deregulation of encryption and other privacy ensuring technologies. They have even funded encryption cracking groups to prove that government laws which restrict encryption programs to only 64-bits are short-sighted, a violation of free speech, and a danger to Internet privacy.
2. They are vehemently opposed to invasive and unconstitutional projects like Carnivore.
3. Libertarians are opposed to all censorship legislation like the Communications Decency Act that threaten our first amendment rights.
4. They use opensource software - Linux and PHP on their website. While I'm not aware of any discussion of the topic, they are also the most likely to support the use of Open Source software in government and protect, if not contribute to, the Opensource community.