Slashdot Mirror

Vote Libertarian if you want to see this sort of shit eliminated.

Neither the major political parties, nor the number four party (Reform) are interested in fixing this.

-

The left doesn't know what's right anymore.

I have come to disbelieve that anyone with any significant political power actually holds any measureable political beliefs. "Left vs Right" or "Conservative vs Liberal" doesn't exist anymore (if it ever did); at least now, it is only a facade to serve as entertainment for those unable or unwilling to think for themselves. The 'two sides' are one group comprised of individuals concerned, first and foremost by a vast margin, with their own personal success. Politics and representation of those who (often-ignorantly) put and keep them in power be damned; a comfortable life and a secure, fat paycheck are the only real goals.

We may be witnessing them being torn between their liberalism and their desire to make a buck.

I doubt that their claimed liberalism exists, and this issue is simply further evidence to support my belief.

Perhaps it is because I do have strong political beliefs that I tend toward being a Libertarian rather than supporting the Republicrats. But I do not belong to any political party at the moment, and I am not yet prepared to believe that a Libertarian in power would hold true to the party's political ideals any more than a Republicrat in power.

The real question is, when will those in the Open Source (and/or Free Software) movement(s) learn to take the new power in their hands, given freely by the masses pouring themselves onto the Internet, to wrest the court of public opinion in line with their position?

Ah well... ''

Seriously, I've just read not one, but THREE stories on Slashdot that indicate to me that the US Government is DANGEROUSLY OUT OF CONTROL.

Is there a full moon out tonight?

I, for one, am fed up with lawyers, corporations and unelected beaurocrats running the government that supposedly belongs to the people. I'm tired of seeing court rulings and laws slanting towards the MONEY, and away from the people. I'm tired of the Republicans, and I'm especially tired of the Democrats. There's not a bit of difference between them anymore. Both parties feel they know better how to run my life, and take 35% of my weekly paycheck to do so.

From what I've been reading lately, things aren't much better in Canada, Great Britain or Australia. And forget about Singapore!

It's time for a GLOBAL tea party... a tea party that will make the WTO protests look like a stroll in the park.

For those of you in the US, I urge you to not walk, but RUN to the Libertarian Party's site and Harry Browne's site. Please DON'T opt for the lesser of two evils in this election; we're at a crossroads here, and whoever is elected next will have a lot of influence on which of the roads we travel down.

If you don't believe in either of the two major candidates, send them a message this November. Vote for a third party candidate. Even if your candidate doesn't win, you're sending the winner a message that you're not happy with the status quo!

Folks, the articles I've read here tonight tell me that this is WAY beyond Open Source vs. Microsoft or KDE vs. Gnome. This is about rights (for those of us in the US) being trampled on that our founding fathers saw were basic for human beings. Don't let the corporations strip us of these basic rights!!

Dave Walker

You may want to check out the libertarian party. However, they probably won't have everything you are looking for in a political party (but none of the others will either.) Check out their platform:
Libertarian Party Platform
p.s. Read your "manifesto." agree w/ 90%. Good stuff.



A man is only as old as the woman he feels.

I agree that this is not the only way (or even the best way) to choose a political affiliation.

However, if you want to know which party "gets" the Open Source movement, there's really only one answer.

I agree that this is not the only way (or even the best way) to choose a political affiliation.

However, if you want to know which party "gets" the Open Source movement, there's really only one answer.

Libertarian Party no(ish) to MS breakup

Libertarian Party no(ish) to MS breakup

Libertarian Party no(ish) to MS breakup

Congratulations on the fine strawman you've constructed. Too bad it has very little to do with libertarianism. I hope that people will go over to the Libertarian Party web site and see the real thing instead of the strawman.

---
hate furrinurs, private religeous schools paid for tax dollars.....oops I mean vouchers, fuck you. C'mon admit it.
---

You're obviously confused.

Read this and this. Then, you'll see that your impression of libertarianism is quite misguided.

In short (in case you'd rather not follow those links), Libertarians are for open borders and privatizing the educational system. The former is pretty much self explanatory, and the latter would ensure that my money won't go to churches if I don't want it to (and I don't).

Perhaps you were thinking of these guys instead?


- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

---
hate furrinurs, private religeous schools paid for tax dollars.....oops I mean vouchers, fuck you. C'mon admit it.
---

You're obviously confused.

Read this and this. Then, you'll see that your impression of libertarianism is quite misguided.

In short (in case you'd rather not follow those links), Libertarians are for open borders and privatizing the educational system. The former is pretty much self explanatory, and the latter would ensure that my money won't go to churches if I don't want it to (and I don't).

Perhaps you were thinking of these guys instead?


- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

Libertarian.org is the best place to start for an introduction to libertarianism... which is not exactly the same thing as the 'technolibertarianism' the Ms. Borsook describes, as far as I can tell. Here is a a snippet from the opening page of libertarian.org:

WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?

Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.

While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.

Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.

This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.

In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.

At this point, a few questions might come to mind. For example, why do libertarians believe so strongly in individual rights? What about other social values, such as equality and security? Or you may be wondering about the historical origins of the libertarian philosophy and movement -- where does libertarianism come from? Who are its leading thinkers? And how do libertarians apply their principles to contemporary public policy issues?

Libertarian.Org is here to help answer all those questions, so read on.

Some other good links:

Libertarian Party

Harry Browne for President

Liberzine

Counterprotest.net

Libertyboard.org

--

People go to jail, but corporations don't. All they get is fines (which by the way I swear, are considered a business expense and a tax writeoff!).

I agree: this sucks. It shows how corporations are protected but individuals aren't. Kind of brings to light Ayn Rand's quote about the individual being the most persecuted minority.

Each corp. has a charter to exist granted it by the state; Nader suggests that if a corp. has a long-enough track record of evil, (eg tobacco companies) that the state revoke its charter (the company dies or gets suspended or some such).

How in the hell did you come to this conclusion? "The current law permits corporations to escape justice, so let's implement communism!" Perhaps you need to read Animal Farm, too. Or go see "The Killing Fields."

Also he's for taking away corporations' right to give money to politicians, which I think most people would agree with.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

I have to say, the Green Party is like open-source politics; it relies on volunteers (one paid person in the whole Northeast US, as far as I can tell).

And that's where the similarities between open-source (software) and The Red^H^H^HGreen Party end. When did open-source advocates indicate that the government should own all the biggest businesses and dictate how much money people can make?

If you want something done, you have to do it yourself!

That's awfully individualist of you.

More importantly, the guy is way ahead of all the other third party candidates, is on the ballot in 30 states already (including Montana :-) Thank you Mr. Wachs and co.) with more to come, and he has eight percent popularity. If enough people vote for him, the Green Party (I was a staunch Democrat before I found the Greens) will become a "recognized" political party.

More importantly, the guy is way ahead of all the other third party candidates, is on the ballot in 30 states already (including Montana :-) Thank you Mr. Wachs and co.) with more to come, and he has eight percent popularity. If enough people vote for him, the Green Party (I was a staunch Democrat before I found the Greens) will become a "recognized" political party.

More importantly, the guy is way ahead of all the other third party candidates, is on the ballot in 30 states already (including Montana :-) Thank you Mr. Wachs and co.) with more to come, and he has eight percent popularity. If enough people vote for him, the Green Party (I was a staunch Democrat before I found the Greens) will become a "recognized" political party.

MMmm yea.. and vote libertarian if you want freedom.. www.lp.org

Wow! I guess I will vote for your man so we can finish our conversion to a police state.. Vote lebertarian www.lp.org We won't go away until you "Marjor" parties get the guts to at least debait our candidate..

Well I am glad the founding fathers didn't think like you... vote libertarian www.lp.org

Extremists who deserved it? Why don't we wake up and realize a choice between two idiots is not a choice. Us open source fans are supposedly for "freedom". Well why don't we not waste our vote and vote for the only party that is for freedom. The libertarian party. www.lp.org they are on the ballot for pres. The candidate is Harry Browne www.harrybrowne200.com The LP is the third largest party in the US has many elected officials in state and local Gov. Check em out before it is too late..

The Reform Party convention isn't till next week, so we don't know if their candidate will be notorious thug Pat Buchanan or Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin, who's trying to get both nominations.

Leagalizing drugs will make it only easier for crackheads to sell their drugs on our streets, and to children.

Surely if they were legal there wouldn't be any need for dealers to sell on the streets. Sales could be controlled in much the same way as alcohol or tobacco today. Anyway. If you want more, try this.

Libertarians also seem very anti-religious and intolerant of it.

I don't know where you get this idea from?

Libertarians uphold everyone's freedom to believe whatever they want. Here's a quote from the Libertarian party platform:

Freedom of Religion

We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We oppose the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.

We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.

Now, the only reason that i can think of that one could think that this was in any way against realigion is if if you thought that your religious beliefs gave you some mandate to oppress others. There are many countries in the world in which this is the case. America is one. Obviously some are more opressive than others, but still, people all around the world, in every country are oppressed because of their religious beliefs. Divine mandate has caused more hate than any other cause.

The quote, above, makes it pretty clear, i think, that the Libertarian party believes that it is not the government's job to legislate on issues of religion. It is up to the individual to decide what they believe in and respect that equal right of others.

Ralph Nader?

From his website: "[We need] universal health care from the cradle through the nursing home, with a single-payer system like Canada's." Yeah, Canada's doctors think it's great: check this out.

He wants bigger government, and will raise taxes even higher (I know he said this recently but I can't find a URL right now).

Also, he says: "[A]ccording to the World Health Organization, the United States was ranked 37th among nations in the world regarding the quality of health care a country provides its people. This is not only embarrassing but also unacceptable. Western European countries provided for their people thirty to fifty years ago. Why can't we do it now in a period of economic boom?", and follows that up with "I would have labor treaties that have teeth, consumer protection treaties, and food and environmental treaties." So we have this great economic boom, but we want to put all these new restrictions on the way businesses operate? I love people who think forced redistribution of wealth will solve all of our problems. Where do you think your jobs come from?

I give a shit jball, but voting for Ralph Nader is not the answer. Nader's policies may provide a short term benefit for some, at the long term cost of the future of our country. And to your last comment, that the government is not Big Brother: the FBI might disagree with you.

Libertarian party
Harry Browne for President

--jb

Now for some truth: Libertarian Party Platform: Freedom of Religion

logan

(This has no relevance, but I'm abusing Slashdot to say that I think Bush is a rotten candidate, and while I don't like Gore, I would vote for a malignant carbon rod for president before I would vote for GWB).

So instead of doing something rational, like voting for a candidate who shares your views, you're going to vote for a schlub who thinks it ought to be legal for the government to tell you to shut up.

I've met George Jr., and while I haven't met Al I've met Str^H^H^HTipper Gore, and told her she was a dangerous idiot to her face. (Well, she heard me, anyway.)

Between the two of them, I'd have to vote for Harry Browne

At least he doesn't think the government should be able to force all schools to censor Internet access if they want Federal funding, or support the v-chip. (Which they both do.)

--

Bush is owned by Microsoft. Gore is owned by the MPAA. Both are hostile to the Fourth Amendment (and other civil rights). The only candidate for president whose ideals are compatible with those of Free or Open Source software is Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate. A vote for anyone else is a wasted vote.

Ask yourself:

Who is a better candidate to run my life?
a) George Bush
b) Al Gore
c) Me

If you chose "c", then you are probably a Libertarian. Everyone who is tired of seeing the Gov't take away our liberties one at a time should check out the Libertarian Party

Easy. Because "selfish" is a code word. It's meaning, in this context, goes something like this:

selfish (sel'fish), adj, 1. a person who stubbornly refuses to do what I want them to, regardless of how good it would be for me. 2. characterized by or revealing a desire to keep the money one has earned honestly, make one's own decisions, and take responsibility for one's own life. 3. opposed to big government and/or big corporations. 4. Libertarian.

I hope they get laughed out of court.

Topher
Got Freedom?

This may be of interest to some... Peter McWilliams, who is mentioned in the MotherJones article, was found dead on June 14. Peter used marijuana to suppress the nausea that was a side-effect of his medications for AIDS and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. After being wrongfully denied access to medical marijuana by the Federal Government, he choked to death on his own vomit. Read all about it on the Libertarian Party website.

This may be of interest to some... Peter McWilliams, who is mentioned in the MotherJones article, was found dead on June 14. Peter used marijuana to suppress the nausea that was a side-effect of his medications for AIDS and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. After being wrongfully denied access to medical marijuana by the Federal Government, he choked to death on his own vomit. Read all about it on the Libertarian Party website.

Actually, the libertarian.org site is an introduction to libertarianism, sponsored by the Henry Hazlitt Foundation.

The Libertarian Party site is at www.lp.org

Obviously, our "child" is getting out of hand, and it's time to take him out behind the woodshed for a good thrashing. ;-)

Really, in a democracy, the government is neither parent nor child... it is a tool. Like most tools, it can be damn useful if used properly -- and damn dangerous if used poorly...

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

How true. And we've been using government for all sorts of goofy applications that the Founding Fathers never intended, like sending people to jail for activities that harm no one (except maybe the "user"). We see something we don't like, and we say, "There oughta be a law!" ...and all too often, we get what we ask for.

I won't belabor the anti-DrugWar message... it's covered too well in other posts/sites/etc.. (Links below) But, it's time we woke up and took control of our lives and livelihoods back from this errant, power-addicted, Frankenstein-monster we call a "government".

-- TaiwanJohn

Links:
Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do is the comprehensive guide to crappy, moralistic laws that crush freedom.
Here is a tarballed/zipped version of the same book (for convenient downloading)
The author of said bookrecently died awaiting sentencing for "medical marijuana" -- which is supposed to be LEGAL in California, after Prop-215
Finally, Common Sense Drug Policy has lots of great info... I'd suggest starting with the Ads section.

Here's a link that tells how to contact the appropriate lawmakers to urge them not to pass the bill:

http://www.lp.org/action/sneakpeek/

John Dillinger was created by the government. Prohibition (a great mistake that apparently taught nothing) created a black market that made gangs and gang warfare profitable. We are once again in the same situation, with the so called "War on Drugs" creating a wasteland of gang activity.

Perhaps you are just a white supremacist, but I can't see what makes you believe Dr. King was a criminal.

Cool it and cut the paranoia. The United States Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to prevent abuses of power by any one branch of government. The FBI has proper authorization from Congress for these activities.

Yes, there does exist a system of checks against government abuse. However, they are being ignored and the apathy of people (such as our AC here) is what is allowing it to happen.

It doesn't have to be this way. We can fight now with our vote, and reclaim the freedom being stolen from us by fatcat bureaucrats. Vote for a President that will end the insane War on Drugs, allow you to live your life as a free American, and restrict the federal government to its Constitutional limits. Harry Browne is one.

Topher Got Freedom?

Webster defines "paranoia" as "a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others. I do not distrust everyone, and a distrust of the government is by no means irrational. Do you mean to say that you feel that people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, &c. are deserving of blind faith in the driver's seat of our lives?

As for the other part of your closing line, I don't know what you could mean. I can't see how you could possibly claim money, without ignorance, to be a reason to vote to support a huge, corrupt government that can't steal enough money from the people to support its rampant spending.

Your assertion that a warrant that allows the government blanket access to the private email of every customer of a "suspected criminal's" ISP does not constitute "unreasonable" is laughable.

Topher
Got Freedom?

Random drug testing in no way violates the protections granted by the 4th amendment, as long as the participation of the testee is voluntarily. If it is demanded by that person's employer--even as a condition of their employment--it is fine. Every employee has a right to quit their job if they don't agree with the policies of their employer.

However, if the government mandates these drug tests, without consent of the tested, then 4th amendment rights are infringed. For example, military members are randomly tested, and refusal to cooperate is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As such, this practice violates the rights of the very soldiers who are sworn to defend those rights. A harsh irony indeed.

Topher
Got Freedom?

It does not matter what the FBI says, they may not do this and be in compliance with our Constitution.

Let your representatives know that you don't want the Constitution ignored, or vote for a candidate that will demand that the government complies.

Look for a candidate at the Libertarian Party home page.

Topher
Got Freedom?

It does not matter what the FBI says, they may not do this and be in compliance with our Constitution.

Let your representatives know that you don't want the Constitution ignored, or vote for a candidate that will demand that the government complies.

Look for a candidate at the Libertarian Party home page.

Topher
Got Freedom?

Oh no?

Libertarian party

--jb

The tired old Democrat-Republican duopoly Party always has a government solution for every problem. Microsoft used that "government solution" against IBM in the early '80s and what goes around comes around. Scott McNealy had better watch his nether parts.

If Microsoft wants to adopt a party that will defend his "freedom to innovate" it had better adopt the Libertarian Party.

I'm personally against the use of Microsoft products because they stink. They crash, they have virulently obscure error messages, and they have interfaces designed by Rube Goldberg. I'm in favor of using my own market choice to punish Microsoft for their bad products.

But I believe the current Jihad against Microsoft being forced down the throats of the American people by such blowhards as Joel Klein of the inJustice Defartment is as great a tragedy as was that same Defartment's attack on the church in Waco.

A simple Executive order from our Philanderer in Chief that forbade any new purchases of Microsoft software by government operatives would have far more effect than the current inJustice Jihad. {but I'm not saying that the effect would necessarily be good}

But the way the inJustice Defartment is treating this antitrust case is a travesty on a travesty on a travesty on a travesty on a travesty ad infinitum, ad ...

Giving inJustice blatherers like Joel Klein the power to "break up" Microsoft is like handing a bottle of whiskey and the car keys to a teenager. Next week we'll have them breaking up the Sun monopoly on servers or the Apple monopoly on usable GUIs. The week after that, you'll have to take a government test and get a license to become a programmer or a sysadmin.

Wake up folks. When you hand over Bill Gates' "freedom to innovate" to the government, you've handed over your own freedom too. And when it's gone, it'll be twice as hard to get back. See "The Patriot" if you don't believe that.

I just returned from the Libertarian Party's national convention. One of the speakers was Dan Fylstra, the co-inventor of VisiCalc. He warned everyone in the computer business that lobbying the current duopoly Democrat-Republican party would lead to getting sucked into the black hole of political bribery and regulation. He suggested that investment in a "political startup" called the Libertarian Party would be the best way to assure freedom of innovation for all computer workers. I believe he's right. But check it out for yourself.

If William Jefferson Philander Blythe Clinton had really wanted to change the way Microsoft does business, the very easiest way would have been promulgation of an Executive Order preventing government operatives from buying any more Microsoft products. If he can order the Air Force to bomb Serbians, he can order the government to use market forces against Microsoft. {but even market forces in government hands have bad consequences}

The 4th amendment (search and seizure) has been under attack for YEARS (because primarily of the draconian "war against drugs") and with one amendment down, it will be easier for this one to go as well (actually they will probably continue what they have been doing for a long time anyway, writing loopholes to the amendment such as ability to search on "suspicion of guilt").

How about the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act (already passed by the Senate), which violates both the First and the Fourth Amendments in one swoop?

It would give police the authority to search your home in your absence and copy your computer files without EVER notifying you or producing a search warrant. It also creates a felony called 'illegal distribution of information', which makes it a crime to publish or link to certain drug-related information.

The War on Drugs is failing miserably, and costing us our freedoms in the process. How can anyone argue that this bill is not totalitarian?

More information is available here.

Sales over the internet have ALWAYS been taxed, in exactly the same way as mail-order sales. This is because, for all practical purposes, e-commerce IS mail-order. Look at all the catalogs that just add "order on our website" to mailing in your order or calling it in.

Anyway, what this means is that if you buy (over the 'net or not) from a company is based in, or has a major operation in your state, YOU PAY STATE SALES TAX. On the other hand, if you buy (over the 'net or not) from a company based in another state, that has no operations in your state, YOU PAY NO TAX. If this state tax auditor of yours is trying to tell you that you owe taxes on purchases made from out-of-state firms, then you'd best dial up a constitutional lawyer or something because he's either full of shit or Pennsylvania has some blatantly unconstitutional taxes (only the federal gov't has the power to levy taxes on interstate commerce).

(This may be the only /. post I've made re: taxes where I didn't go off on an anti-tax libertarian rant. If you hate taxes as much as I do, visit the Libertarian Party)

MoNsTeR

In order for a PC enclosure to do the same convection cooling then you would have to have a top vent (that isn't flat, because God knows anything flat gets a dozen old magazines piled on top of it in milliseconds) and someting to generate heat above the mainboard.

Apple can pull it off with the iMac design because they have control over what they put in there. A standalone enclosure for PCs would not be so lucky.

Topher
Got Freedom?

It's popular to assume that only a totally and absolutely untouched market is somehow "free", but in fact, we expect all sorts of limitations. Laws against killing people for money restrict the free market too, but it turns out no one minds them.

While I do not choose to align myself completely with the Libertarian Party, their Statement of Principles is an excellent manifesto for a free society, and sums up my beliefs pretty well:

The Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

----------------
I posted that to illustrate that freedom and societal order are not mutually exclusive, and that IMO, libertarianism offers a practical way to determine when it is proper for government to be involved and when it is not. It's a pretty basic formula.

This is not a troll... can't handle the truth, eh?

Read from the Libertarian Party 1998 Platform.

Algore and his little fascist wife are no better than the people pushing through the Fourth-Amendment-emasculating "anti-methamphetamine" law.

There is only one party that *consistently* *in all cases* opposes censorship: The Libertarian Party.

--

I wonder this, as well. I can see perfectly--being that I am an American--why its own citizens would hate the U.S. Government. We have to suffer the effects of this bloated federal government every day.

This is not a situation that we have to sit quietly and accept, however. I may despise the myriad of unconstitutional agencies I'm forced to pay for with my taxes, but I love the spirit in which my country was created, and I believe in the ideals that our ancestors paid for in blood.

Americans don't have to take this. We can fight back with the weapon government fears most--VOTE. Vote for a candidate that believes in your ability to govern yourself. If you want to learn about these candidates, visit the Libertarian Party home page.

Topher
Got Freedom?