Slashdot Mirror

Agreed. Anything else is a futile attempt to fix the symptoms, not the underlying cause.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lobbyists-too-powerful-because-government-is-too-powerful

If anyone is interested, I can get someone on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) or the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC) to answer questions. The Libertarian Party is the largest third and fastest growing party in the US (as confirmed by Wikipedia!) and I know that many ./ers tend to lean small-L libertarian.

Disclaimer: I am the Region 2 alternate member of the LNC, and Chair of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party.

You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."

Then you're not listening to people in the right parties.

• Put farm subsidies out to pasture
  "'It's absurd that we're paying farmers billions of dollars during a time of soaring crop prices,' says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers while paying higher prices at the grocery store."
• Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton
  "We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."
• Libertarians: Tea Party betrayed by tiny Republican budget cuts
  "It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements."
• LP Monday Message: Republicans jack up government spending
  And we want to get rid of ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare -- while the Republicans vote to increase it."
• Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian
  "We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. "
• Corn Subsidies
• Ron Paul on Government Subsidies
• Oil and nuclear are not free market energies: ACC 6-28-2011
  "Alternative" energies are not the only ones heavily subsidized. 2 examples of how oil and nuclear enjoy the largess of the state."
• Energy Subsidies

Someone either isn't looking or has their head buried in sand.

Oh, one more link: My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'
In the video Rep Edward Markey (D) brags that his energy bill has massive subsidies for coal and nuclear power among other dirty energy sources, but little subsidies for alternative energy. Fact is is government picks, or tries to pick, winners and losers all the tyme.

Falcon

You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."

Then you're not listening to people in the right parties.

• Put farm subsidies out to pasture
  "'It's absurd that we're paying farmers billions of dollars during a time of soaring crop prices,' says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers while paying higher prices at the grocery store."
• Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton
  "We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."
• Libertarians: Tea Party betrayed by tiny Republican budget cuts
  "It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements."
• LP Monday Message: Republicans jack up government spending
  And we want to get rid of ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare -- while the Republicans vote to increase it."
• Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian
  "We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. "
• Corn Subsidies
• Ron Paul on Government Subsidies
• Oil and nuclear are not free market energies: ACC 6-28-2011
  "Alternative" energies are not the only ones heavily subsidized. 2 examples of how oil and nuclear enjoy the largess of the state."
• Energy Subsidies

Someone either isn't looking or has their head buried in sand.

Oh, one more link: My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'
In the video Rep Edward Markey (D) brags that his energy bill has massive subsidies for coal and nuclear power among other dirty energy sources, but little subsidies for alternative energy. Fact is is government picks, or tries to pick, winners and losers all the tyme.

Falcon

You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."

Then you're not listening to people in the right parties.

• Put farm subsidies out to pasture
  "'It's absurd that we're paying farmers billions of dollars during a time of soaring crop prices,' says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers while paying higher prices at the grocery store."
• Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton
  "We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."
• Libertarians: Tea Party betrayed by tiny Republican budget cuts
  "It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements."
• LP Monday Message: Republicans jack up government spending
  And we want to get rid of ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare -- while the Republicans vote to increase it."
• Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian
  "We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. "
• Corn Subsidies
• Ron Paul on Government Subsidies
• Oil and nuclear are not free market energies: ACC 6-28-2011
  "Alternative" energies are not the only ones heavily subsidized. 2 examples of how oil and nuclear enjoy the largess of the state."
• Energy Subsidies

Someone either isn't looking or has their head buried in sand.

Oh, one more link: My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'
In the video Rep Edward Markey (D) brags that his energy bill has massive subsidies for coal and nuclear power among other dirty energy sources, but little subsidies for alternative energy. Fact is is government picks, or tries to pick, winners and losers all the tyme.

Falcon

You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."

Then you're not listening to people in the right parties.

• Put farm subsidies out to pasture
  "'It's absurd that we're paying farmers billions of dollars during a time of soaring crop prices,' says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers while paying higher prices at the grocery store."
• Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton
  "We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."
• Libertarians: Tea Party betrayed by tiny Republican budget cuts
  "It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements."
• LP Monday Message: Republicans jack up government spending
  And we want to get rid of ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare -- while the Republicans vote to increase it."
• Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian
  "We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. "
• Corn Subsidies
• Ron Paul on Government Subsidies
• Oil and nuclear are not free market energies: ACC 6-28-2011
  "Alternative" energies are not the only ones heavily subsidized. 2 examples of how oil and nuclear enjoy the largess of the state."
• Energy Subsidies

Someone either isn't looking or has their head buried in sand.

Oh, one more link: My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'
In the video Rep Edward Markey (D) brags that his energy bill has massive subsidies for coal and nuclear power among other dirty energy sources, but little subsidies for alternative energy. Fact is is government picks, or tries to pick, winners and losers all the tyme.

Falcon

You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."

Then you're not listening to people in the right parties.

• Put farm subsidies out to pasture
  "'It's absurd that we're paying farmers billions of dollars during a time of soaring crop prices,' says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers while paying higher prices at the grocery store."
• Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton
  "We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."
• Libertarians: Tea Party betrayed by tiny Republican budget cuts
  "It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements."
• LP Monday Message: Republicans jack up government spending
  And we want to get rid of ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare -- while the Republicans vote to increase it."
• Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian
  "We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. "
• Corn Subsidies
• Ron Paul on Government Subsidies
• Oil and nuclear are not free market energies: ACC 6-28-2011
  "Alternative" energies are not the only ones heavily subsidized. 2 examples of how oil and nuclear enjoy the largess of the state."
• Energy Subsidies

Someone either isn't looking or has their head buried in sand.

Oh, one more link: My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'
In the video Rep Edward Markey (D) brags that his energy bill has massive subsidies for coal and nuclear power among other dirty energy sources, but little subsidies for alternative energy. Fact is is government picks, or tries to pick, winners and losers all the tyme.

Falcon

But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."

You're listening to the wrong parties. http://www.lp.org/platform

Libertarianism isn't about "good business", its about being free to pursue your own path within some social construct. Typically that means no murdering, no stealing, etc. http://www.lp.org/platform

Nice belief system. Care to educate yourself and actually be able to claim you know what you are talking about? http://www.lp.org/platform

The Libertarian party does not advocate removing government. Government is necessary for society to exist. http://www.lp.org/platform

Give me a break. You are generalizing people based on a few examples that are distasteful to you. Why assume I am this way when you have no prior evidence to support it? You basically assume all people who claim to be Libertarian are Tea Party. This is completely untrue. The Libertarian party existed WAY before the Tea Party movement. That movement is wolves in sheep's clothing. It is obvious to any free thinking human being that the Tea Party is just another flavor of GOP or neo-conservative, and it is apparent to the Libertarian party. http://www.lp.org/platform

http://www.lp.org/platform

If it still hasn't dawned on some of you that our government is completely controlled by mobsters, this has to give you the final shove. Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Everything they say is a lie, everything they do is at the behest of powerful, money-soaked lobbyists.

Shake the system:
Peace and Freedom Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party

Vote for any of the above. Mix and match. Vote randomly. Just stop voting for the Mobster Parties.

You may want to read these page

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

http://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare

on the Libertarian Party's website. I don't think you understand what a Libertarian is.

You may want to read these page

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

http://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare

on the Libertarian Party's website. I don't think you understand what a Libertarian is.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Or this: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality

"Removing government from the equation entirely allows gay and lesbian couples to enter into the same legal agreements and arrangement as heterosexual couples, and it would allow individuals and businesses to decide for themselves who to grant the benefits of marriage to," said Sumner. "No individual, straight, gay or lesbian, should be forced to accept someone elseâ(TM)s definition of marriage."

In other words, you couldn't force the Catholics to marry gays, and you couldn't force the Unitarians not to.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Or this: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality

"Removing government from the equation entirely allows gay and lesbian couples to enter into the same legal agreements and arrangement as heterosexual couples, and it would allow individuals and businesses to decide for themselves who to grant the benefits of marriage to," said Sumner. "No individual, straight, gay or lesbian, should be forced to accept someone elseâ(TM)s definition of marriage."

In other words, you couldn't force the Catholics to marry gays, and you couldn't force the Unitarians not to.

So what's this "or dangerous" bit? Ammunition? Websites promoting cults? Websites attacking cults? Websites selling material that promotes anything that senators don't like, like free thought, opposing political positions, naked bodies that they can't grope for themselves?

This ain't about piracy, people.

If you're fiscally conservative and want to end the all-war-all-the-time state of things, there's only one party you should be voting for.

This isn't a forum to go into what needs to stay and what needs to be removed, such a discussion here would be insane so we have to use generics. The Libertarian platform does not state that all regulation is bad: http://www.lp.org/platform. Not to mention you can identify with a political party and not be in 100% agreement with their platform. Clinton was definitely the best president of the last two decades and we are talking about regulation because you started posting false crap about regulations and the Libertarian party. But hey don't let the fact that I've pointed out that all your posts are based on straw men arguments from making half a dozen more in a single post.

I'm a member of the Libertarian party of the US ( http://www.lp.org/ ) and the few candidates that are elected have done an excellent job of following the party's platform, and yes, they actually do have a platform that is united and coherent when compared to the Republican/Democrat parties.

First off, take a breath of clear air without having your lips on Rupert Murdoch's asshole. Only Fox News and fellow travellers use that mis-spelling.

Secondly, of course the libertarian position can be summed up in one sentence: "GOVERNMENT BAD, RICH PEOPLE GOOD, AYN RAND BETTER (fap fap fap)!" The fact that it isn't supported by any data from reality is apparently irrelevant.

I'm a member of the Libertarian party of the US ( http://www.lp.org/ ) and the few candidates that are elected have done an excellent job of following the party's platform, and yes, they actually do have a platform that is united and coherent when compared to the Republican/Democrat parties. No one can accurately describe the platform for the Republican or Democrat parties in one sentence and have it be true for the majority of candidates. With the Libertarian party it is easy. "Maximize economic and personal freedom and reduce the role of the government in everyday society"

yeah right.... those at top had lotsa tax cuts and they accelerated offshoring. Meanwhile they want to continue wars in middle east. Hello... guess what funds the military? Taxes! So pay up for what you started.

Yea right. NOT!!! Most libertarians opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libertarians are calling for Afghanistan and Iraqi withdrawals. And to head you off, they are also saying Iran should not be the new Iraq. They also are for reducing the size of the military. At least try to look into things before making accusations.

OK, but they own the police (SEC)

Citation needed.

so what are us commoners gonna do?

People themselves can request states revoke corporate charters among other things.

Falcon

yeah right.... those at top had lotsa tax cuts and they accelerated offshoring. Meanwhile they want to continue wars in middle east. Hello... guess what funds the military? Taxes! So pay up for what you started.

Yea right. NOT!!! Most libertarians opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libertarians are calling for Afghanistan and Iraqi withdrawals. And to head you off, they are also saying Iran should not be the new Iraq. They also are for reducing the size of the military. At least try to look into things before making accusations.

OK, but they own the police (SEC)

Citation needed.

so what are us commoners gonna do?

People themselves can request states revoke corporate charters among other things.

Falcon

Then vote third party. Pick your ideology:

Pirate Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party

Don't think of it as a wasted vote, think of it as a vote against the current system.

Gosh, one last thing: an internally consistent libertarian would have to reject environmental regulations in favor of torts.

Says who? What criteria do you use to decide who is a consistent libertarian and who isn't? Libertarianism is an ideology that focuses on creating a society in which individual liberty is maximized, not on abolishing all regulation. An ideology does not need to be defined by it's most extreme elements, there is always a continuum. Environmental regulation has long been accepted by libertarians (they don't get much more libertarian than Milton Friedman and he was in favor of it) because of the extreme difficulty of measuring individual harm (the example he would use is absurdity of people suing each factory in the area for a percentage of their dry cleaning bill because the smog made their shirt dirty). I am not a member of the Libertarian party but here is a summary of reasonable mainstream libertarian positions on various issues http://www.lp.org/issues I would also recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw Don't listen to the few anarchists around who call themselves libertarian, they are far from it.

I'm just waiting for a libertarian, any libertarian, to reconcile the libertarian call for privatizing roads with the right to travel.

Not all libertarians agree on everything. For instance not all believe roads should be privatized. What many of us do agree on is a Constitutionally limited government, and the Constitution of the USA specifically enumerates roads as a power of government. And if you look at the Libertarian Party's platform not once will you see the words "highway", "road", or "street". All will you see of them in the issues is "street" but that deals with the Wall Street Bailout not paved streets. What you're spreading is nothing more than FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Falcon

I'm just waiting for a libertarian, any libertarian, to reconcile the libertarian call for privatizing roads with the right to travel.

Not all libertarians agree on everything. For instance not all believe roads should be privatized. What many of us do agree on is a Constitutionally limited government, and the Constitution of the USA specifically enumerates roads as a power of government. And if you look at the Libertarian Party's platform not once will you see the words "highway", "road", or "street". All will you see of them in the issues is "street" but that deals with the Wall Street Bailout not paved streets. What you're spreading is nothing more than FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Falcon

I'm not a libetarian but it's obvious that many who claim to be have not read their own material on environmental policy.

>The bulk of the spending increases have been in defense, an area where traditional socialists oppose massive spending and where libertarians support it.

Umm, Libertarians are not for massive defense spending. Straight from the horses mouth:

"3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."

Libertarian no-tax, no-fed-money "ideal" is progressive taxation.

And where are these no taxes libertarians? The Libertarian Party only calls for the repeal of the income tax and oppose employers acting like tax collectors.

It's an existing mechanism for inhibiting John Galt from excessive, unwarranted greed, and it can be used to redistribute wealth in a directed fashion.

Yea we need a reverse Midas, everything touched turns to shit. Reward mediocrity and punish merit. Yea wasn't that tried during the 20th century? I think it was called communism. Where are all the communist countries now? They don't exist.

For example, to fund a health care system that provides health care for all

You mean one that rations health care? Fact is is there is no free market in medicine and health care which is what is needed.

Falcon

Try Constitution or Libertarian.

You mean like AIG, Wall Street, all these stupid banks involved in subprime mortgage scams, GM and Chrysler... Oh wait they didnt fail they got a bail out.

The fact they were bailed out shows there wasn't a freemarket. Under a free market the government would have let all of them fail and declare bankrupty. Many of those who support a free market opposed them. Here's some articles from the freemarket think-tank CATO. Here's more articles from the Libertarian Party, with more from the magazine "Reason". All of them support freemarkets.

Falcon

The problem is the two evils just keep getting worse, and you gotta choose one.

This is the reason the other parties never even get a good percentage of votes in an election. Most americans don't realize there are other options out there than republicrats. If you really want "change" look into the libertarian party: http://www.lp.org/ or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
read about the other parties. Don't be lazy and just pick the lesser of two evils, there's loads of other evils out there, expand your horizons.

> That was the option, re-invent & reboot or buh-bye.

Precisely. Even if a company would be insane enough to finance another conventional Trek film after Nemesis, only a very few ultra-hard-core fans in rubber forehead appliances and mouldering cosplay regalia would have gone to see it.

They could have just rebooted without explanation, as was done with Casino Royale. This would actually have simplified the plot and freed up 20 minutes or so for other things. The time travel angle was a nod towards die-hard fans, which appears to have been unappreciated.

So, fine, there's going to be a subgroup of intense trekkies who are very unhappy with the reboot, who would, perhaps, rather there be no more Star Trek unless it included Shatner or Stewart (depending on which camp you're in). I'm ok with that. I don't think Berman-era hardcore fans have the numbers to make or break a nationally released film, and their ire may (as implied in the Onion skit) actually have an opposite effect. It's all good. I'll be seeing the film again this week.

> I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore

We do, but you have to put up with white-hot hate from both established parties.

Yes technically it was mercantilism or something similiar to that - but Libertarianism is effective the same thing as the platform of the Libertarian Party, if it were implemented, would let corporations run ramshod all over everyobdy else.

If this is what you believe you don't know what the Libertarian Party, or libertarians, stand for. For instance they are and were opposed to all the bailouts. Ask a libertarian, big "L" or small, if the banks should have been bailed out and almost all would say no. Here, I'll make is easy for you with a search of the LP website for bank bailout.

And on corporations, here's what the LP says about Corporate Welfare. One libertarian writer says this: "Corporations are pure-bred progeny of Leviathan."

Falcon

Yes technically it was mercantilism or something similiar to that - but Libertarianism is effective the same thing as the platform of the Libertarian Party, if it were implemented, would let corporations run ramshod all over everyobdy else.

If this is what you believe you don't know what the Libertarian Party, or libertarians, stand for. For instance they are and were opposed to all the bailouts. Ask a libertarian, big "L" or small, if the banks should have been bailed out and almost all would say no. Here, I'll make is easy for you with a search of the LP website for bank bailout.

And on corporations, here's what the LP says about Corporate Welfare. One libertarian writer says this: "Corporations are pure-bred progeny of Leviathan."

Falcon

Most libertarians are absolutely against the idea of corporations.

Yeah, you'd think they'd be.

But not the ones I know. They're against government bailouts, of course. They're willing to see corporations go bankrupt. But against the idea? Nah. Just to check, I went to the Libertarian Party website and looked around. Nope, I don't see a word against the idea of corporations. In fact, their platform says "We defend the right of individuals to form corporations", though they don't mention the fact that the only value of a corporation is by virtue of the special rights that the government has bestowed upon it.

That sort of thing is why I don't take libertarians very seriously.

Hmm, more like vote for your libertarian or local equivalent party http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech The pirate party thing is about copyright, not censorship, right?

From the libertarian party platform:

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

Just a sample, really. You read the whole thing and it becomes pretty clear that public roads are completely antithetical to the LP's platform. In the view of the party, such things are better left to private businesses, completely unregulated by the government.

Of course, the LP also advocates for the right to corporate monopolies. I'm sure that mixing roads, lack of government regulations, and monopolies would lead to some kind of paradise, right?

Libertarian NOT EQUAL TO Republican

Just because I disagree with the Liberals, as the position has come to be understood in the American and British political discourse NOT Classical Liberalism as it was and is understood in Europe, does not mean that I automatically agree with the Republicans. If you an American and you still believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom then why not join us and do something about it?

How dare you! Hirez proof of the Libertarian Party and I'll have to bring this up in my Libertarian Pirate group that we need to register more Libertarians.

Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom.

Of course this was before corporations became powerful as Thomas Jefferson warned about.

So, your solution is to make them even more powerful by implementing libertarianism?

No, libertarians want to make corporations less powerful. Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis says "The Libertarian Party is adamantly opposed to any sort of bailout of American corporations who, through their own mismanagement, find themselves at the brink of failure,". Corporations get their power from governments, by limiting the power of government the power of corporations will be limited too.

Again - real sharp, logical thinking right there.

Again no logic at all. Since you can't seem to use reason and logic and back up your positions I see no reason to continue this.

Falcon

Your the second green libertarian I have met this week...err...ever!

Here's the Libertarians Party's position on the environment, The Pollution Solution: Stopping the environment's worst enemy. Notice what it says are the biggest polluters, governments at all levels. This is true whether it's the Department of Defense or a local school district. Here's On The Issues section on the Libertarian Party on Environment.

"Private enterprises can be effective in cleaning up the environment."

Yep, but only if/when our economic system properly recognises pollution as a cost.

Yeap, government doesn't make polluters accountable for a lot of pollution, as that page says "we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house".

Falcon

And that's why libertarians are very supportive of the first amendment.
Oh, wait....

http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/04/libertarianism-the-stuggle-ahead/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

the Democrats are the fiscally conservative party and have been for about 30 years

Well, let's check the facts (try page 22) just for grins. In the past 30 years (your timeframe), Republicans have controlled congress for 12 years and Democrats 18 years.

Republicans balanced the budget 4 of their 12 years, for a 33% score. Democrats balanced the budget 0 of their 18 years, for a 0% score.

So. By what definition would this make Democrats the "fiscally conservative party" over the past 30 years??

Granted, 33% looks good only against a pitiful 0%; we ought to boot both parties out, and try something different. But regardless of their current backsliding (to use an old Southern Baptist term), the Republicans of the 1990's responded to the Reform Party's success in 1992 by becoming seriously responsible fiscally. The Democrats haven't done so since at least the early 1960's.

Here.

Could be. I tend to agree with the Libertarian Platform to a greater degree than the "major party" platforms, but I'm not a card-carrying Libertarian.

I might point out that the platform "support[s] the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression", and I certainly considered the attacks on 9/11 "aggression". If the Libertarian idea is that our military can't cross our own borders to prevent attacks... well, yea, I'm definitely NOT that kind of libertarian!

You mean like these guys?