Slashdot Mirror

If you want more information on why Libertarians get cheezed off when you associate them with the radical right, check out the world's smallest political quiz. The questions are a somewhat libertarian-biased, but the diamond-shaped results graph gives you a more useful description than the old left-right dichotomy.

More detail on all of these positions can be found at here.

Don't like censorship? Libertarians are adamantly against any infringement upon the first amendment.

Tired of the War on Drugs and it's flagrant abuses of the 1st and 4th amendment? Libertarians oppose any form of prohibition, including drugs. They believe that morality can not be legislated and any attempt to prohibit a victimless, consensual act only leads to the violence, and overbearing government control we see in reaction to the drug war.

Sick of seeing 20 to 40 percent of your paycheck disappearing each pay period? Libertarians will do away with the income tax by making the federal government so small, it will be unnecessary. The limited government functions outlined in the constitution could easily be paid on the existing excise taxes and tarrifs.

Sick of America being the world's police force and bully? Tired of America trying to impose it's will on foreign governments? Libertarians would withdraw all American troops and establish a military focused only on defense of the nation, while ceasing the efforts of current politicians to impose American values on foreign soil. Never again will American soldiers die on foreign soil when America is not directly threatened.

How about social security? Do you think it will be there when you need it? Libertarians don't. That's why they will privatize Social Security, opening personal accounts for all those who have been made dependant on it, freeing you to put the money you earned into a private account, with a private company that can't change the rules on you every time they realize they've bankrupted the system.

I could go on and on, but check out their position page. Libertarians are the ONLY ones who can save this country from sliding farther and farther towards the socialist and communist governments we've fought for so long.

By the way, I'm moving to Maryland next month. :)

I hate to break it to you, but that's just out of the frying pan and into the fire, when it comes to percentages of Democrats. ;)

If you're interested in getting involved with the Maryland Libertarian Party, drop me an email. We're not as big as the Republicans, but we aren't sell-outs either, and you can still effect some real change from outside the duopoly.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...Marylander...

I have always believed that voting just to votie is non-sence. It only helps the "powers that be" stay in power. The reason is that people who are not interested or don't know the issues cannot make an real vote -- i.e., they can't have formed a real oppinion as to who they want in office, and are practically cating random ballots. These ballots are bound to be for the major parties, thus keeping "third" parties out.

However, this does NOT mean you should not vote, and niether do the comment made by main party candidates. What all this should mean is that US citizen who are concern with these issues should consider looking at some of the third party candidates, such as Ralph Nadar or (my favorite) Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. If you don't like any one, then you probably shouldn't vote. But if you just want to keep both major candidate out of office, then please do your self a favor and vote against both of them, not let the one of them stroll into office.

Even if you vote for someone who looses, at least it was a try, and hopefully will send a message that might be noticed. And, if evey simply decides third parties can't win, they are just creating self fulfilling prophesy. I'd rather not vote than support major parties, but Iplan to vote against them both.

Analogues could apply to any democracy, I think.

http://www.lp.org These guys had a frigging key cracking time at distributed before any other party even TALKED about the internet.

True, Bush said some pretty revolting things in that last debate about V-chips and censorship. But Al's views are not that different I assure you. Both candidates see the internet as a great tool to be used by industry and corporations to sell and provide stuff to you the CONSUMER! Both candidates will ensure that the same thing happens to the internet as has happened to radio and television before it.

The pesky knowledgable will be moved off to a small useless section of the net where they won't interfere with the daily business of Amazon, AT&T, MSNBC, Microsoft. This will be similar to the minimal section of the airways that Ham-radio operators are in now.

Both major candidates see the internet as this and don't give a fuck about Open Source, Freedom of Assembly (on any medium) or Copyright. If you want to vote for a candidate that is truly techie friendly try Harry Browne

OK, let's take this idea to its logical conclusion. Since your idea of "voluntary exchange" ignores any usage of coercion, use of force or threat of force, then consider the following situation:

• A man jumps from the shadows, brandishes a weapon, says "your money or your life". You hand over your wallet, he disappears, you're out $50 plus everything you have in your wallet: credit cards, pictures of loved ones, important documents. According to you, this is just a "voluntary exchange in our capitalist society", hence this is not a crime. as you argue, that robber is offering you a service, namely, letting you walk away from this encounter. And you are free to refuse his services, just as he is free to refuse to let you live.

The definition of "voluntary" is "something done freely, without duress". That means that you made the decision without coercion, duress, threat of violence, whatever. The government does not give you the "option" to pay. They don't "request" it. They may use such terms, but they are usually prefixed with "under threat of incarceration, asset seizure and forfeiture". In civil society, even if someone puts a gun in your face and "requests" your money, that's still robbery. Its still illegal. My question is, if its illegal for individuals and private groups to do it, why is it legal for governments to do it?

1)Emigrate. Sure, go to a country that is even more oppressive. That makes sense. This country is the freest on earth. Its no accident it is also the most prosperous.

2)Vote for people who will eliminate services. Now we're getting somewhere. If you'll notice, libertarians are all for that. Which one comes first (elimination of services or reduced taxation) is simply a matter of methodology for them.

I don't like a lot of libertarians, but at least they are honest and respectful of other people's rights and properties. Seems they care more about other people than the most caring social security advocate. Go figure.

People, if you want your vote to matter, DON'T vote for the lesser of two evils, go out and educate your selves about the options. Then vote for who you believe is right. It's as simple as that.

Here are a couple of links that I find relevant:
The Libertarian Party
The Green Party
One of Nader's sites.

Those, of course, are only a limited sampling from my bookmarks, but they're a start.

~~Galen~~

It's interesting to me that /. is following the mainstream media's ignorance of third-party candidates. Interesting, because many slashdotters seem to have very Libertarian views already. Just more cud for rumination.

Give Pisa chants.

Who keep these morons in power.

Many people don't like the idiots running this country, but no one wants to risk voting for a
candidate they belive in.

I don't see a lesser evil. Bush is a stupid Texas redneck with a penchant for coke and executions (But not abortion. Go fig on that one...),
while Gore is an android that likes gun control and censorship.

Neither of these candidates represents anything *close* to what I believe in, and both are bought by the highest bidder.
(i.e. The major corps that annoy and violate the people so much.)

For me, it *IS* coming down to two candidates: Browne and Nader.
I'm going to vote for a candidate I *believe* in, not what someone else tells me to believe in.
Yes, it's gonna be a losing vote - but at least it wasn't a wasted vote.

Richard
(And unlike many of my posts, that was not a troll.)
----

Give me a candidate who speaks out against the war on drugs.

Browne - The Libertarian Party

At the risk of being moderated offtopic, I'll give you two. I will do so because I believe that this is the most important issue and the mainstream candidates simply won't discuss it. Small tax cuts and boosts to social security just do not impress me when Bush and Gore will continue to have peaceful Americans thrown in jail for doing nothing wrong while others are forced to live in fear. They mean nothing to me when the first and fourth amendment are being stripped and property can be seized at will. So I cannot vote for any candidate who supports the war on drugs.

If you care, you can vote for:

• Although his site doesn't seem to think it's important enough to even list it as one of "the issues", Ralph Nader has called for major changes to the drug war. In particular, he wants to support marijuana legalisation, calling to change our "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
• Harry Browne the Libertarian Party candidate, has vowed to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on his first day as president. His explanation of his views on drugs is most impressive.

Bah, sounds like someone's stupid enough to actually believe Rush Limbaugh. News flash: the Republicans are not, and never have been, defenders of your rights (unless you believe you have a right to force your christian morals on other people, to dump your shit in my backyard, or to have my tax money pay for your company's fuckups). Up until the mid '80's, the Democrats did a moderately decent job of supporting free expression. Then, they decided to out-Republican the Republicans, and we end up with the system we've got today, where there's no substantive difference between the parties. Each is pushing basically the same Christian-supremacist corporate feudalistic agenda in slightly different words.

You want your rights protected? Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote New Party. But neither of the Weasel Twins (my apologies to weasels) is going to do jack shit to protect your rights.

--

Nader will replace the drug war with a new War On Income

Absolutely true. And there's no room for privacy under a policy of 100% Income Taxes for folks who make more than the Green's rather arbitrary idea of a decent income.

If you want to end the War on Drugs, and you want the government to keep its hands off the economy, there's only one vote: Harry Browne, Libertarian for President

There's another option, if privacy and freedom from censorship are your priorities. The Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, stands firmly against any regulation which would restrict the internet, or any other form of speech. This has been the Libertarian policy for years. If you take Nader's advice to "vote your conscience", maybe Libertarian is the way to cast your vote.

There's another option, if privacy and freedom from censorship are your priorities. The Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, stands firmly against any regulation which would restrict the internet, or any other form of speech. This has been the Libertarian policy for years. If you take Nader's advice to "vote your conscience", maybe Libertarian is the way to cast your vote.

My problem with Nader is that every idea he supports is backed up by a flood of funds that come out of *my* pocket. If I want to support a cause, I'll do it myself, I don't need him to choose which charities/causes I support.

Also, if the government funds a program, even if it's open-source, then it has control over that program because it can withdraw funds whenever the program doesn't do what the gov't wants it to.

Don't believe me? Just look what the federal gov't does when it wants to change laws it has no control over like drinking age, road issues, etc... it withdraws funding and the states inevitably comply.

Check out a party build on principles- Libertarian

yet another reason to vote Libertarian, don't you think? how many more reasons do you need?

Whereas prohibition brought out much of the gansters of the 1920's, the drug prohibition has brought on gangs such as the Bloods and Crips.

Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto

Whereas prohibition brought out much of the gansters of the 1920's, the drug prohibition has brought on gangs such as the Bloods and Crips.

Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto

Pray what magic is it that ensures that privately funded space exploration would be more efficient?

Smaller space-oriented enterprises will be forced to innovate and produce something that people want. Manufacturing and entertainment come to mind, as well as the potential for space tourism. Time and time again, it has been shown that projects given a governmental crutch fail misearably, due to corruption or mismanagement (I live in Boston, the Big Dig is a classic example of this.) If space proves to be profitable on any front (not just financially, but also academically), large companies with more resources will take notice, causing competition, and a healty market.

Oh yeh, and do email me if your party ever gets a coherent line on intellectual property and privacy regulation.

Libertarian Party Platform:
Statement of Principles
Protection of Privacy

I don't want to sound like a shill for the LP, but at least their platform is spelled out for all to see, and their politicians are there to facilitate them, as opposed to the "flavor-of-the-week"-style politics of the GOP and Democrats..

Pray what magic is it that ensures that privately funded space exploration would be more efficient?

Smaller space-oriented enterprises will be forced to innovate and produce something that people want. Manufacturing and entertainment come to mind, as well as the potential for space tourism. Time and time again, it has been shown that projects given a governmental crutch fail misearably, due to corruption or mismanagement (I live in Boston, the Big Dig is a classic example of this.) If space proves to be profitable on any front (not just financially, but also academically), large companies with more resources will take notice, causing competition, and a healty market.

Oh yeh, and do email me if your party ever gets a coherent line on intellectual property and privacy regulation.

Libertarian Party Platform:
Statement of Principles
Protection of Privacy

I don't want to sound like a shill for the LP, but at least their platform is spelled out for all to see, and their politicians are there to facilitate them, as opposed to the "flavor-of-the-week"-style politics of the GOP and Democrats..

Of course, there are more than two candidates in this election. The Libertarian party would like to completely privatize space exploration, as seen at the Libertarian Party Platform: Space Exploration. With the taxes you save from the rest of the LP platform, you can donate as much as you like to any of these private space corporations. A privately funded space exploration corporation (could be a non-profit..) would likely be much more efficient...

Get a grip folks. This is not a ban on free speech or anything else. This says that if you're under 18, you need your parents' permission. I think that is pretty reasonable. Like it or not, parents really should have a say in the upbringing of their kids. Too many parents don't give a damn and that is really sad. But those that do, shouldn't have their hands tied behind their back while the State raises their kids and decides what's good and what's bad. As soon as you turn 18, you can go out and do whateverthehell you want. No questions asked. Total and complete freedom to frag away. But if you're under 18 and living with Mom and Dad (or Mom or Dad or Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad or...you get the picture) your legal guardians (yep, their job is to guard and protect you the best way they see fit -- whether you like it or not) should have a say in what you can and can't do. I'm really sick of the "new slashdot liberalism" that says "Parent's have no rights and kids can do whatever the hell they want." Should a parent let an 8 year old drop out of school and smoke crack because he wants to? Should they let their 12 year old daughter give blow jobs to earn a little extra cash 'cause she thinks it's cool? You've got to draw the line somewhere. The USA is one of the most free societies in the world (I know, I've lived in some of the less free) and when you turn 18 you can do almost anything you want. (Of course, with a Libertarian president, we could do even more...). The good decent moral people of Indianapolis aren't trying to take away *your* freedom but they are defending the freedom of parents! Stop getting bent out of shape every time someone supports the rights of the parents. If you wanna watch pr0n and play Quake IX -- Battle of the Sexbots, then you can -- as soon as you turn 18!

Don't wimp out and vote for Bush or Gore, please!

I'm going to vote for the one candidate running that doesn't care a whit for me, or anyone else. Harry Brown.
Libertarian Party

There's an alternative to this Republicrat modus operandi, the Libertarian Party. Check out Libertarian candidate Harry Browne's website to discover his stand on important issues like the one's raised here. And before anyone jumps in with the "don't waste your vote" objection, consider what Harry has to say about that:

"If you vote for George W. Bush because you can't stand Al Gore, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement for every big-government program George Bush wants to inflict upon you. If you vote for Al Gore because you're afraid of the religious right, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement for all the plans Al Gore has made for running your life.

The only unmistakable vote you can cast -- the only way you can tell the politicians you're fed up with big government and you won't tolerate it anymore -- is to vote Libertarian."

Well, quite frankly, we have failed to prove them wrong. If they spew hogwash, and we vote for them anyway, aren't we idiots?

When will an engineer / computer science guy get elected president, rather than these marketing / legal / pointy-haired types?

When we vote for them, and not a moment sooner.

If you want common sense, I suggest you check out Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party. And, of course, vote your conscience, not your fears.

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers

But the times, they are a changin' Judge Upholds Video Game Ban

To quote the judge:

It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment ... that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission.

The law requires coin-operated games featuring graphic violence or strong sexual content to have warning labels and be kept at least 10 feet from nonviolent game machines. The machines must also be separated by a curtain or wall so minors cannot see them. The law bars people under age 18 from such games unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Businesses would be fined $200 per day for a violation; three violations in a year could lead to the revocation of a business's amusement location license.

No what's really happening here is the arcade industry is being deliberately targetted for destruction by the forces of ignorance.

America, a Free Country? Not anymore.

Vote Libertarian!

First of all, you should note that the Libertarians think immigration laws are a violation of human rights and an economic miscalculation (it's not a zero-sun game).

Also, you might be interested in this, the Libertarian Party's view on human rights here and abroad:

We condemn the violations of human rights in all nations around the world. We particularly abhor the widespread and increasing use of torture for interrogation and punishment. We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty.

Until such a global triumph for liberty, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn, however, the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political and revolutionary groups.

The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights. Only private individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue.

Note the "we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights." part. Don't whine to Bush and Gore about evil Red China selling soccer balls made in labor camps. Bush and Gore are in their pocket. Harry Browne wants you to take your complaint right to the source.

The threat of conquest from afar (the Soviet Union is the archetype) is quickly fading from the public consciousness. Communism is just so twentieth century! For the new millennium, we'll need new demons for the American government to exorcise. Our children will suffice.

Recipe for tax simplification in the U.S. (and possibly elsewhere):

Step 1. Require that all politicians complete their taxes by themselves (no help interpreting the laws from CPAs, accountants, or lawyers) and by hand (no TurboTax wizards, although I suppose we should allow Excel spreadsheets and calculators to be fair). Let them see just how difficult they have made the situation for the average citizen.

Step 2. Sit back and wait as the moans mount from Washington D.C. and the respective state capitals.

Basically, my problem with U.S. income tax laws is that they are so complicated that no human being can actually hope to comprehend them (unless they happen to have a super-simple life, like $20K in salary and no income from savings, investments, etc.). But the politicians who create the laws don't *have* to comprehend them, because they can hire a bunch of accountants to worry about it for them. And even though I think Gore is probably a more viable candidate than the other goofball, the complexity he wants to add to the tax code scares the crap out of me.

I support Harry Browne, Libertarian for President.

It was supposed to look good because the video never went through an analog stage. I've been wondering if DVD on a laptop has the same advantage? Does the video go through an analog stage before getting to the LCD display?

What about an LCD display on a desktop monitor with digital input? Anyone watched a DVD on one of those?

What about these dedicated handheld and larger, DVD players? All digital?

Does anyone make a Plasma, rather than LCD display for computers? I've seen the 'used to be $10,000 now around $3,000' consumer video versions, but never in a desktop monitor. One of the things I don't like about LCD dispays is the speed at which pixels can be turned on and off. Plasmas seem to do that much faster, and consequently have snappier, cleaner, video during scenes with lots of motion.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.nd it.

Didn't Pat Buccannan say he would get rid of the FBI if he's elected?

I don't know about Pat, but I bet Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party is willing to remove any federal agency.

I suggest you educate yourself a bit more before spreading misinformation like this. The Libertarian Party supports an end to corporate welfare.

Places to check for more info:

• Harry Browne, Libertarian Presidential Cantidate
  
• Libertarian Party
• Advocates for Self-Government

Democrats can't be trusted.

Republicans can't be trusted.

It's time to find some folks who understand privacy

Anybody else get the feeling that our representatives in Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, are more concerned with their petty squabbles and party lines than actually getting anything interesting done with the country?

By Jove, I think he's got it. If you are standing between the two parties, they look very different. In truth, though, they both want to expand the power of government (at the expense of citizens, which is the only way to do it) and they both want to determine what you do. The only difference is whether they want to put their hands down the front or the back of your pants before they squeeze. Check out the Libertarian Party for an alternative.

-jeff

All they know how to do, more deeply ingrained than a knee-jerk reflex, is pass more and more laws. Some are hilarious, many are contradictory none can even claim to be representative.

And the -5 Bummer result is that we have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of laws and administrative regulations on the books... endless pages of mind-numbing BS that gets added to, but rarely deleted. It's like a massive software system designed by committee and written in Perl by an ever-changing team of thousands of programmers, to a specification that is constantly changing. It makes me hungry for spaghetti just thinking about it.

Certain laws are common sense... but this level of bureaucracy and micro-management is ridiculous. For Christ's sake, the FDA recently published a 15-page proposal to regulate the size of holes in Swiss cheese. How absurd is that?

(1) the only real political power comes from having a large pocketbook, not from having the right to vote;

(2) the only candidates we are really permitted to choose from in elections are ones who take and raise tons of money, so your everyday citizen with a sharp mind and a genuine concern for the well-being of the general public simply can't afford to run a competitive campaign;

3) the only candidates we are permitted to choose from are part of the same insidious little elite of lawyers, corporatists, and career politicians that have caused all the problems for this country in the first place.

And finally, "Campaign Reform" is just another way the Republican-Democrat party has of guaranteeing its incumbency. All "Campaign Reform" is an unconstitutional limitation on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Replace all "Campaign Reform" with a voluntary posting on a public website of all campaign contributions and their sources. That'll be real campaign reform.

Not to be combative, but your post looks like the work of someone who just skimmed the surface.

1) He's well poised to shake up the process

As is Harry Browne, who is tied with Nader in the polls. Both are ahead of Buchanan.

2) He's the only one who's blowing the whistle on how indistinguishable the two parties have become

You mean the only one besides Harry Browne?

3) He's completely funded by private individuals (like us).

You mean like the Libertarian party, who won't even take federal matching funds? So far, Browne's campaign has raised and spent $1.9 million, having refused $750,000 in federal matching funds...

Perhaps you should look at several parties before proclaiming that the green party is soundly trouncing all other third parties.

I don't know much about GPS in aviation, but I am a little surprised that this type of system does not already exisit.

Ever wonder why general aviation airplanes (which are inherently simpler machines than current automobiles) cost 6X-10X as much as an automobile? It's the FAA "standards" and "certification" that airplanes have to meet that causes this. To replace the little rubber grommet that holds the shoulder belt in place on a Cessna seatbelt is prohibitively expensive because of the PMA (Parts Manufacturing Authority) required. That's why the shoulder belt continuously falls off in many of the rental Cessnas I've piloted.

In a Libertarian country, like America before the influx of European socialism in the 1910's, there wouldn't be an FAA. Instead, there would be certain interoperability standards (something like TCP/IP in the computer world) that everyone would adhere to, and airplane quality would be ensured by market forces and insurance companies.

In a Libertarian America, ADS-B would have been adopted five years ago and would have become an international standard by now.

If you'd like aviation to have the same affordability, accesibility and interoperability as the Internet, vote Libertarian.

I'm guessing most of the slashdot readers are fairly tolerant people with liberal outlooks. Very few people would be in favor of state run racial discrimination, or inequal treatment for men and women, or any other system that divides people up into groups. So why then am I seeing so many people saying "H1-B workers are taking our jobs"?

Yes, more immigrants means more workers means slightly lower pay. I'll tell you something else, though -- I'd be in much greater demand if, for example, the government were to deport all non-citizens, or everyone whose ancestors aren't from Europe. But I don't sit here saying "throw the foreigners out", because I'm not into asking people to do things for me at gunpoint that I can't do for myself without force.

If we accept the notion that being born with a different color skin, or being born a certain sex, or being born into a family with a certain religion shouldn't affect your legal standing with respect to what you are allowed to do, why do we still cling to the antiquated idea that where on the planet you happen to be born should?

Personally, I don't like temporary work permits like H1-B, because it's such a waste to have people set up a life here, work for a while, then go back. I'd much prefer outright open immigration -- "Come on down, you're the next contestent on the American Dream". That's part of why I vote for the only US political party that isn't xenophobic.

If you're one of those that would be displaced by more immigrants, tough. The same argument that says we shouldn't bother to build labor intensive consumer goods in the United States (comparative advantage) says that we shouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for tech workers when there's millions better qualified who will work cheaper.

This isn't a real issue. The effect on the economy is not even a question: completely free immigration helps the economy, no matter what other countries do. The only issue is whether special interest groups (like "current US permanent residents") can muddy the waters and make people think that this hurts the economy. It helps the US economy, it helps the world economy, and it helps the immigrants. The only people it doesn't help are those who lose their jobs because they wanted more money than they are worth. Extremely simple.

I believe that Ralph Nader truly has good intentions, and is generally a guy of decent character...

That being said, I firmly believe that the policies he proposes would greatly *increase* political corruption in the U.S. Nader proposes to vastly increase the size of the federal government and its control over businesses... thereby increasing the incentive for business people to lobby/bribe politicians for favors, access to markets, and thwarting of competitors ( this is how it works in China and Russia which, as I am sure you are aware, have very large governments)

If you want to reduce corruption, get rid of the power that politicians have to dole out special treatment to different corporations and industries.

Favoritism, lobbying and political manipulation doesn't just happen at the Federal level.... it goes all the way down to your local 'Economic Development Commission' - the one that grants 10-year tax breaks and free infrastructure buildout to certain companies that it wants to attract, but not to others.

I'd like to wind up my rant by saying that I agree with the other posters... If you want your freedom, are tired of seeing your tax dollars wasted, want to end the completely absurd War on Drugs, and not leastly want to reduce corruption, Vote Libertarian, from the presidential ticket all the way down to the state and local level.

I believe that Ralph Nader truly has good intentions, and is generally a guy of decent character...

That being said, I firmly believe that the policies he proposes would greatly *increase* political corruption in the U.S. Nader proposes to vastly increase the size of the federal government and its control over businesses... thereby increasing the incentive for business people to lobby/bribe politicians for favors, access to markets, and thwarting of competitors ( this is how it works in China and Russia which, as I am sure you are aware, have very large governments)

If you want to reduce corruption, get rid of the power that politicians have to dole out special treatment to different corporations and industries.

Favoritism, lobbying and political manipulation doesn't just happen at the Federal level.... it goes all the way down to your local 'Economic Development Commission' - the one that grants 10-year tax breaks and free infrastructure buildout to certain companies that it wants to attract, but not to others.

I'd like to wind up my rant by saying that I agree with the other posters... If you want your freedom, are tired of seeing your tax dollars wasted, want to end the completely absurd War on Drugs, and not leastly want to reduce corruption, Vote Libertarian, from the presidential ticket all the way down to the state and local level.

Anytime I see someone proposing Ralph Nader as an alternative to bigger government I have to laugh. If you like Ralph Nader, fine, but he is a socialist and I guarantee you the government would be far more opressive under him.

"we should tax things we don't like" -- Ralph Nader.

I'll second the previous poster: vote libertarian.

I certainly hope not. Now if it helped Harry Browne, that would be cool. All Nader wants to do is put even MORE power into governments greedy paws.

Check out Nader's views at his site. He is very much more socialist than anything. (For a quick look at the five points in the political field, check out the libertarian party's main page. Quickly, though, they are: libertarian, authoritarian, conservative, liberal, and centrist.)

In every one of his views, Nader supports giving government more control, and removing control from us. Want an example? Just pick ANY of his issues. Taxation: "we should tax things we don't like." WHO DECIDES the "things we don't like"? Government, that's who! On EVERY issue, he supports giving control to government.

Please, please, dear Slashdotters, vote Libertarian this year. Our political system has been so corrupted by corporate influence that it barely resembles what our forefathers had in mind. They were a bunch of libertarians, favoring personal responsibility over government control. This is obvious in everything they did. Don't believe me? Go read the constitution of the United states and other documents found there (the Magna Carta (on which our constitution is based), Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, and the declaration of independence). These are amazing documents.

Today, we have a two party system by design. We have been socially engineered to (as has been pointed out earlier) not vote. We have been socially engineered to think that political activism is wrong. Political activism is not wrong. It is not bad or immoral. Political activism is what got us our great country today, courtesy of George, and many others.

For the first time in my life, I will not vote with my party (and will be changing my affiliation soon). I supported Ronnie in the 80s, and George after him. Most recently, I supported Mr. Bob Dole. This year, I do not support my party's nomination. Why? OK, I have changed somewhat, but my party and this political system have changed radically over the last few years.

Today, (as I said earlier) our system is ruled by corporations. We must vote this year for a return to the land our forefathers built. We must vote the way they would have us vote. We must vote libertarian.

Join me, dear Slashdotters, in a vote to send this message to our congressmen (and women). If we continue to vote for the status quo, status quo is what we'll get. And it seems that status quo is not what many of us here on Slashdot want. So there it is, Slashdotters. A call to action. Either vote your heart - let them know how you feel - or SHUT UP.

There are more than two points of believe in this system (I mentioned them earlier), but that's not what the system has taught us to believe. We have more than two "choices," sure, but I see only one choice. And it's not one of the "big two" any more. The "big two" (republicans and democrats, which a friend calls republicrats) don't stand for us any more. They stand for corporate interests and their own interests.

Let them know who is boss. Vote to return our nation to its great beginnings.

Pshew. If you read this far, you have my thanks. If you vote with me, you have my sincerest gratitude.

Do you not recall the primaries, where the two most interesting candidates, the ones with genuinely new ideas, were gonged off the stage by their own parties, who had predetermined the "Chosen Ones." The 2000 primaries were a travesty of democracy, where the large interest groups TOLD us for whom we could vote in November. And they picked well. Neither Gore nor Bush have the backbone to stand up to their puppet-masters. Clinton, for all his many faults, could lie to these people and make them believe he had done his best.

And the saddest part is that the Congressional candidates are for the most part worse than the Golden Boys. The ones that could afford the campaigns are either incumbents, or "chosen" by a special interest.

So yeah. Turn out the vote. But don't vote for the Republicans or the Democrats. Find a third party that you can vote for in good conscience. Personally, I like the Libertarians , but if your tastes run other ways, their are many other third parties. The Libertarian, Reform, Green, and Natural Law parties are all running presidential candidates. These four and others, including the Socialist and American Independent parties, are running candidates at other levels of government.

There are choices, and while some of the men and women running under the banner of the traditional parties are good people, you must consider that they receive a great deal of money from the national parties, which have been proven to be exceptionally corrupt.

But in any case - do vote!