Slashdot Mirror

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?

Ummm.....If there are viable private solutions to this scourge, then why haven't we seen them already?

(One of the great things about MAPS is that the more participants, the better it gets. If you use MAPS to filter your mail, then report spam you receive back to MAPS appropriately, you will be helping to improve the service -- thus reducing your future spam intake and everyone else's.)

I am not sure if a private solution would work in this situation because of the "free speech" arguements and also of the multi-juristdictional nature of the problem.

"Freedom of speech", as protected by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution (among others), is more accurately described as the freedom to use your own resources, including your voice and your property, to speak your mind. It does not justify your use of other people's property to speak your mind. That, however, is what spammers do -- they use my mail server, without my permission, to spam me, my users, and others. In the civilized world we call that "theft of services" -- just as if I owned a printing press and you crept in by night and used my press to print up your leaflets.

The legal trouble, then, lies in defining "permission". Some would argue (and have argued) that by connecting a mail server to the Internet you are implicitly granting everyone permission to use it as much as they want, for whatever purpose they want -- including spamming. The opposite extreme is to hold that only explicitly solicited mail is granted permission -- which would rule out a lot of perfectly legitimate mail. Both of these are IMHO ridiculous extremes. A legal attempt to stop spam, however, must deal with these issues in defining spam. Veer to far towards the first position, and you violate property rights; veer too far towards the second, and you violate freedom of speech. A private attempt to stop spam can define permission extensionally -- i.e. by example. This is exactly what cooperative, voluntary systems like MAPS's lists do. The lists are made up of addresses associated with actual pieces of spam received and reported by participants.

You also mention the "multi-jurisdictional nature of the problem". This, too, is a problem solely for legal attempts to stop spam, and not private ones. Private cooperation among ISPs and among users may easily ignore governmental borders -- indeed, it already does. MAPS participants come from all corners of the globe.

For all those anti-government folks, I am surprised to see that a creation of a civilian anti-spam force is so distrubing to you.

As a Libertarian, I object to government meddling in private affairs. I also object to crime (i.e. the violation of people's rights), and I consider spamming to be criminal, regardless of whether or not government thinks it is. Spamming is a violation of the property rights of those spammed, and of the owners of mail servers that relay and store the spam. I support people taking private action to protect themselves from crime, insofar as they feel the need to do so, and can do so without violating others' rights in the process -- and that is exactly what MAPS and similar systems do.

If you are emotionally dependent on government to protect your rights -- in other words, if you are unwilling to protect them yourself -- what rights do you really have?

Um, it will end when they knock it off and leave us alone. When they stop rewriting US law at whim to help their bottom line, when the politicians work for us again, and when they are no longer able to use their lawyers, guns, and money to hurt everyone who doesn't want to be a conforming, obedient little consumer.

It will end when they're not in office anymore. If you have the right to vote, use it. I'm not sure what the Libertarian stance is on copyright, but going by principles I would guess that they consider it one more thing the federal government doesn't have to do. As for Reformists, they'll actually nip the whole copyright problem in the butt since, if I understand their platform correctly, they want the election/governing process to listen to the people, i.e. no more suspicious campaign financing (i.e. bribes, such as Disney + Bono campaign contribution = extended copyright protection) and make it so more than just Republicans and Demonspaw^H^H^H^H^Hcrats can get elected.
---

I didn't write the law, so don't blame me for the bad news. As I tell all my friends: "You don't have to like the law, you just have to obey it." And then they usually realize there are way too many laws infringing on their natural rights, so I point them to places like CATO or the national Libertarian Party website.

If you disagree with what Microsoft is doing, perhaps you should tell your representatives in congress that a rewrite of intellectual property laws are in order. Ranting about it on Slashdot doesn't further your cause. Getting politically active does.

The reason voters see little choice is because both the Republicans and the Democrats are alike in most ways. They have created a status quo and are loathe to change it.

But there is a real third option, the Libertarian Party. Visit the site, take the World's Smallest Political Quiz and decide for yourself.

people who want to describe themselves as Libertarian like to talk a good game, but when the rubber meets the road they tend to retreat to comfortable conservative positions.

In fact, the Libertarian Party Platform has the following to say about "Sexual Rights":

"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

"We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

"We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

Libertarians do not generally oppose "corporatism" -- on the contrary, they tend to support completely unrestrained free-market activity.

Libertarians support the free market ... and the free market is not served when government gives favors to corporations, nor when it manipulates them to assail the private behavior of their employees.

And by your own admission, the fact that only "some" libertarians oppose the patent system only reinforces this point: why do not all libertarians oppose it, as an outrageous intrusion into individual liberty? Why is it not a fundamental part of the Libertarian Party platform?

Because the Libertarian Party is chiefly about economic liberty, with civil liberties as an afterthought, if they are addressed at all.

Let's go to the news page. Here I see nine news articles, of which three pertain to privacy, two are tax issues, one is gun-rights, one pertains to the right to breastfeed an infant, one to hate-crime laws, and one to an attempt by government to regulate circuses out of existence. By Libertarian standards (under which the rights to keep and bear arms and to raise one's child are civil liberties) again we have a significant majority of civil-liberties over economics issues.

people who want to describe themselves as Libertarian like to talk a good game, but when the rubber meets the road they tend to retreat to comfortable conservative positions.

In fact, the Libertarian Party Platform has the following to say about "Sexual Rights":

"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

"We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

"We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

Libertarians do not generally oppose "corporatism" -- on the contrary, they tend to support completely unrestrained free-market activity.

Libertarians support the free market ... and the free market is not served when government gives favors to corporations, nor when it manipulates them to assail the private behavior of their employees.

And by your own admission, the fact that only "some" libertarians oppose the patent system only reinforces this point: why do not all libertarians oppose it, as an outrageous intrusion into individual liberty? Why is it not a fundamental part of the Libertarian Party platform?

Because the Libertarian Party is chiefly about economic liberty, with civil liberties as an afterthought, if they are addressed at all.

Let's go to the news page. Here I see nine news articles, of which three pertain to privacy, two are tax issues, one is gun-rights, one pertains to the right to breastfeed an infant, one to hate-crime laws, and one to an attempt by government to regulate circuses out of existence. By Libertarian standards (under which the rights to keep and bear arms and to raise one's child are civil liberties) again we have a significant majority of civil-liberties over economics issues.

people who want to describe themselves as Libertarian like to talk a good game, but when the rubber meets the road they tend to retreat to comfortable conservative positions.

In fact, the Libertarian Party Platform has the following to say about "Sexual Rights":

"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

"We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

"We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

Libertarians do not generally oppose "corporatism" -- on the contrary, they tend to support completely unrestrained free-market activity.

Libertarians support the free market ... and the free market is not served when government gives favors to corporations, nor when it manipulates them to assail the private behavior of their employees.

And by your own admission, the fact that only "some" libertarians oppose the patent system only reinforces this point: why do not all libertarians oppose it, as an outrageous intrusion into individual liberty? Why is it not a fundamental part of the Libertarian Party platform?

Because the Libertarian Party is chiefly about economic liberty, with civil liberties as an afterthought, if they are addressed at all.

Let's go to the news page. Here I see nine news articles, of which three pertain to privacy, two are tax issues, one is gun-rights, one pertains to the right to breastfeed an infant, one to hate-crime laws, and one to an attempt by government to regulate circuses out of existence. By Libertarian standards (under which the rights to keep and bear arms and to raise one's child are civil liberties) again we have a significant majority of civil-liberties over economics issues.

But some Feds have recently been getting sneaky - they're going to the people who made these arguments, and asking them things like "So this censorware stuff you said was less restrictive isn't working, and isn't usable in public libraries? Would you be interested in testifying in court as an expert witness?". It looks like they may be trying to overthrow the least-restrictive-means argument, by contending that filters aren't that much less restrictive, and trying to Catch-22 us into letting them censor the net like they tried to before.

Peacefire is the group that was sued for revealing Cyberpatrol's blacklist, but also for publishing the password-cracker that lets you get around Cyberpatrol's restrictions. The EFF archives on filtering are at this link on eff.org, but they're a bit out of date (unless you believe the year is "19100" :-). The Censorware Project is more recent.

A reasonable fraction of the many blatant errors in Cyberpatrol's agenda need to be "explained by incompetence rather than attributed to malice"; classifying everything on the net is an impossibly large job, much of the gruntwork gets done by bots with only minimal accuracy, and there's certainly not enough time for real human attention to most of it. That doesn't excuse their lack of fixing problems they've been notified about, or the biases that do appear to be in that product and in many others. "Hackers" - oh, nooo! keep your kids away from them!

The referenced article has its mistakes as well - the Libertarian Party may occasionally be accused of being Republicans who smoke dope, and some of its members are, but that's pretty much a mischaracterization :-) It'd be much more accurate to classify most of the members as computer geeks who don't do real politics because that involves talking to non-geeky people in a way that's interesting to them and doing a lot of plain boring time-consuming hard work like precinct-walking.

This is an excellent idea, but of course it would not work. The bull-headed idiots in office are not going to allow you to take away their control of your life that easily. The intended checks on government power have been ignored by the government (Ooooh, big surprise).

We have to elect new leaders that care about the Constitution and want you to have the liberty our forefathers' paid for in blood. We need to use the power we do have: VOTE. Vote for a candidate that believes in your ability to make your own choices and lead your own life, instead of insisting that you conform to his draconian regime.

We don't have to stand for this. I know I won't. I love my country, and I've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The presidents swear an oath, too. They just don't take it seriously. It is my moral and patriotic duty to cast my vote for a candidate who does take that oath seriously.

I will vote for Harry Browne in November, and make it clear that I am tired of a huge government wasting my money. Are you tired, too? Support Harry Browne for President.

Consult the Libertarian Party home page to find candidates for your local elections that believe in you and your freedom.

Topher
Got Freedom?

This is an excellent idea, but of course it would not work. The bull-headed idiots in office are not going to allow you to take away their control of your life that easily. The intended checks on government power have been ignored by the government (Ooooh, big surprise).

We have to elect new leaders that care about the Constitution and want you to have the liberty our forefathers' paid for in blood. We need to use the power we do have: VOTE. Vote for a candidate that believes in your ability to make your own choices and lead your own life, instead of insisting that you conform to his draconian regime.

We don't have to stand for this. I know I won't. I love my country, and I've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The presidents swear an oath, too. They just don't take it seriously. It is my moral and patriotic duty to cast my vote for a candidate who does take that oath seriously.

I will vote for Harry Browne in November, and make it clear that I am tired of a huge government wasting my money. Are you tired, too? Support Harry Browne for President.

Consult the Libertarian Party home page to find candidates for your local elections that believe in you and your freedom.

Topher
Got Freedom?

All in all, we should have several browser choices when MacOS X is shipping.

Topher
Got Freedom?

The best recourse for restoring liberty is to exercise your voice and vote for candidates that believe in liberty and will do what it takes to fight against its infringement. Don't give any support to those who are set on suppressing your freedom.

If you need a list of candidates that believe in the U.S. Constitution, and believe in your ability to govern yourself, go to the Libertarian Party home page.

Topher
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

It will stand alone as a BSD, and some people may find it useful as such. You say that "if you want to run Apache headless in a co-lo space, then Darwin is irrelevant to you." I disagree.

If you want to run this setup, and run it really fast, they may want to run Darwin. I think a big selling point of Darwin, in comparison to other BSDs, will be AltiVec acceleration--especially with the new G4s that have two AltiVec units on the chip. A really fast system is often coveted.

Topher
Got Freedom?

Where the hell are we going to get the dilithium crystals necessary for a warp field of this magnitude?

We don't have the goods to even produce a nanocochrane warp field, let alone a field large enough surround an entire starship.

Topher
Got Freedom?

If this exists, then the Red Box would not require additional hardware when run on MacOS X for x86, and the Blue Box could be supported with a G3 processor on a PCI card. The Yellow Box, of course, is already written to x86, so that would be available, too.

So, then it would be matter of do you want to:
A) Run on better hardware, with supported but slower Win32 support, OR
B) Run on the x86 hardware that would be cheaper and support Blue apps with additional hardware if you need them?
Either choice would leave you with full-speed Yellow apps. Although the superior archetecture of the PowerPPC would yield better results, you could settle for x86 if you wanted to.

Off topic trivia:
The colours (Blue, Yellow, Red) come from a brainstorming session the MacOS software team had years ago, where they wrote ideas they had for MacOS development on little cards. They wrote things that could be done soon on blue cards, stuff that was tough to do on red cards, and the middle-ground stuff on yellow cards. Rhapsody/MacOS X stuff is from the yellow. Makes you wonder what is written on the rest of the red cards, doesn't it?

Topher

Got Freedom?

All that's needed here is a spec that would have to be met to run MacOS X on x86--a set of supported and/or required chipsets. That way Apple could license a "Works with MacOS X" moniker for supported boxes, and work with Dell, Gateway, etc. to be sure the hardware is up to standard. Use of MacOS X on a non-spec'd machine would be possible, but unsupported. And if the spec was unpublished and NDA'd then they also wouldn't have every schmo trying to make a cheapass PC to run MacOS X instead of buying thier hardware. (Hell, even if it WAS published, they would sell more of their software, without having to back it up with support for unlicensed machines!)

I see it as doable. They just need to pick their friends.

Topher

Got Freedom?

The Libertarian Party has been continually in favor of electronic rights, a free internet, crypto rights, etc. They've been working to get rid of a lot of the penalties that the gov't now uses in the Drug War: assets forfeiture, paid informants, conspiracy charges that put you away forever. All of these things are now moving into the new realm of "Internet Terrorism". It won't be long before the Kevin Mitnick thing is outdone. They're just building the hysteria right now so that the public will happily believe that the gov't is saving them from the terrible hackers.

Just reading the LP platform is time well spent. First time I read it, I kept waiting for the hypocrisy, but it just isn't there.

Libertarian Party

A few Silicon Valley moneymakers have been using their money for more traditional politics, beyond industry-related issues. Unfortunately, the prime examples have been Ron Unz (:-) and of course Larry Ellison's work on Airplane Rights.

Jim Warren has done a lot of good work on the State of California government, particularly on electronic open access to state government data and state legislative activities, and he's one of the main reasons we have the access that we do. Jim gave a talk to the Cypherpunks group a few years ago - one of his big points was that state legislators respond quite well to written letters, and it only takes a few dozen letters per legislative district to let them know there's public opinion that they need to follow.

Libertarianism - one of the difficulties with Silicon Valley lobbying is that most of us are libertarians - either the partisan types, or entrepreneurs and technologists who don't think bureaucrats can improve things by telling us what to do (given the evidence from experience with their incompetence and motives) (though lots of us were college students who were happy to have research grants :-), or civil libertarians who don't like the overall injustice and war that governments have delivered over the years, or at least Draft-Dodging Republicans Who Smoke Pot. That means that the most common response we have to "what can the government do to help us" is the same as it was with the French government 200 years ago - "laissez faire" - go away and leave us alone - which is at odds with government's desire to grow and expand its bureaucratic activities.

Also, doing real politics is a lot of work, and most of us are pretty busy doing other things.

Separate reply on EFF

Visit the Libertarian Party home page to find candidates that believe in your ability to govern yourself.

Topher

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

I believe that those losing civil suits they initiated should suffer the burden of their target's legal costs. This would relieve some of the pressure on our overburdened judicial system by eliminating some of the more frivolous lawsuits.

I believe that death penalty appeals should be given a priority, so that their cases can be seen again quickly, to overturn the conviction if new evidence has come to light, or to speed the elimination of this burden on society.

I believe in cutting a lotof legislative fat by enacting a constitutional amendment to require a time limit on current and future legislation, maximum of five years. This I mentioned in a previous post.

We need to stop allowing the government to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves. We need to take the responsibly, and kick those porky bureaucrats out of office. Vote for someone who believes in your ability to govern yourself. For a list of those candidates, visit the Libertarian Party home page.

Demand Liberty!
Topher

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

The right to own a gun to protect yourself is in jeopardy in the United States, and has been taken from the people governed by several of the more oppressive governments.

This sort of thing is exactlywhy we need to fight to retain these rights now. When the government reserves (and utilizes) for itself a right that those governed are denied, you have a verydangerous situation. Our founding fathers had the good sense to know this, and state it clearly when we sloughed off the oppressive reins of King George. Unfortunately for us, they did not enact into law, nor include in the subsequent Constitution, the Declaration of Independence.

This, combined with an unfortunate loophole in the Constitution, has allowed our liberty to be slowly and surely whittled away by legislation. Don't let this continue! If you want to see one of the ideas I support to stop this bloated legislation, see my previous post.

You may be getting tired of "Rock the Vote" ads and whatnot (especially if you are stuck watching the Armed Forces Network), but it is up to you to make this change. Yourvoice needs to be heard. Tell the fatcat bureaucrats that you won't put up with this anymore, and vote them out of office.

You don't have to settle for the "least bad" of candidates. Vote for a candidate that supports yourright to govern yourself. If you need help finding a candidate for the elections in your state, and nationally, visit the Libertarian Party home page.

Demand Liberty!
Topher

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

There are several opposition parties, of which the most well-known are the Libertarians, the the Reform Party, the the Greens, and the Socialists. I myself am a Libertarian, but I would rather that you vote for any opposition party rather than voting for the regime (Democrat or Republican) or not voting at all.

Some Americans feel that it is "throwing their vote away" to vote for a candidate who is not likely to win -- and instead vote for the "lesser of two evils" among the Democrat and Republican. The problem with this is that, as you point out, the Dems and Reps really are not very different! Because of this, a vote for either a Democrat or Republican is basically a vote for their combined regime -- which, if you don't support the regime, is worse than throwing your vote away. Voting for even the tiniest of opposition parties, in contrast, registers your opposition to the Dem/Rep regime, and brings us closer to a real political debate in this country -- even if your candidate doesn't win this time.

Americans, please help bring real issues, real debate, and real differences back to our nation's political process. Give up on the Democrat/Republican regime. Vote for the opposition.

Labels which imply a value judgement must be completely avoided: the definition of "obscene" depends entirely on who you are. Definitions of Mild, Explicit etc. need to be commonly understood from an openly published and clearly precise set of guidelines.

My point is that even fairly reasonable people may honestly believe they are applying objective criteria, when in fact, different people will see things differently. To use the racism example, a recent article in the Daily Cal quoted a black high school student saying something derogatory about the "white kids" at her school. It was mild, but a reader wrote in to comment on the fact that this was accepted but if the races had been reversed, it would have been labeled as racist.

I'm not saying that the lines are vague. I'm saying that there are many categories where one person will be 100% sure something should be labeled one way, and another person, also fairly rational, will be 100% sure it should be labeled otherwise. And these are frequently the criteria that would be most relevant to blocking. Everyone will have similar opinions about whether a page is about cars or computers. People will not have similar ideas about whether a page is "explicit", whether a given JPEG is art or pornography, or whether a page promotes drugs. Is Naked Lunch literature or pornography? How about Anne Rice's Exit to Eden with content as explicit as what you would find on the newsgroups, but also literary value as commentary on the impossibility of finding real gratification in debauchery (but much more so the former than the latter)?

This is why we need many moderators, and the ability to define your own effective moderation as a function of all the moderations.

--Kevin

Additionally, the anarchists among us are often keen to abolish copyright and patents, while progressives in particular usually want to reform them to "restore a balance".

Progressives and libertarians are also strongly divided over Internet taxation, as well as taxes used to fund or subsidize Internet access.

Some geeks (seemingly independent of other issues?) have strong disagreements about private-sector censorship and invasion of privacy -- especially when practiced by parents rather than corporations. :-)

There are also some socially conservative geeks out there somewhere, including a few on slashdot. Professional corporate IT is very conservative, but contains a much smaller percentage of computer enthusiasts and computer hobbyists.

Think of the difference between groups like CIEC, VTW, Peacefire, CPSR, EFF, the LP, and then Nader's CPT. All of these organizations "oppose censorship" in some form; do they meaningfully agree on any fundamentals of political philosophy? CIEC included conservative Republicans; the LP's got anarchocapitalists; VTW was chock-full of progressive Democrats; CPSR and the CPT speak for social democrats and even a couple of revolutionary Communists...

I bet you really like him.
I bet you really might be him.


"Probability. You know, like two to one, three to one, five to
four against. It said two to the power of one hundred thousand to
one against. That's pretty improbable you know."


You are probably Stuart
Do you what he really is ?
Do you know who else is that?

Hint.. The most hated author on /.

It's a real shame he works for us while having these faggish little Commie views. I bet all of you have those views. Right? Little libertarian bastards.



~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~ ,'~-,'~

...diversification. When you buy a mutual fund, you don't throw all your money into a tech sector funds; you'll lose your ass if there's a downturn on NASDAQ.

If you're Microsoft, you seek market proliferation. If there's a trend toward Linux, you write code for Linux boxes, just as they have done for Mac users all these years. Don't kid yourself into thinking that a CIO, who has ALREADY been talked into trying out Linux, won't jump at the chance to comfort himself with some big-name "reliability." Thus, Microsoft writes Office for the penguins.

Oh, and you anti-libertarians (you KNOW who you are...talking out of your ass) out there. Go find out what the Libertarian party is all about. Freedom of speech, small government, and protection of individual rights...if you don't support at least some of the LP's views, I question your support of this site...and you're definitely NOT a geek like me.

You make several valid points in your argument, except for your incorrect perception of the Libertarian Party. Where do your ideas that Libertarians are pirates and thieves come from? One of their strongest points is a person's right to enter a contract with another person without the intrusion of government. If you need any further clarification, you should read the Libertarian Party Platform found here: http://www.lp.org/platform/ You just might learn something about what little liberty you have left.

Official political party sites

Democratic National Committee

Democratic Socialists of America

Green Parties of North America

Labor Party

Libertarian Party

Natural Law Party

Reform Party

Republican National Committee

Socialist Party USA

Workers Party

Official candidate sites

Gary Bauer

Bill Bradley

Pat Buchanan

George W. Bush

Steve Forbes

Al Gore

Orrin Hatch

Alan Keyes

John McCain

Donald Trump

If you're looking for straight answers to the kinds of questions that you listed, check out Harry Browne's site, and the Libertanian Party site. Whether or not you agree with his/their views, you won't be treated like a fool; you'll get straight answers. Hopefully you'll like the answers and be persuaded to vote Libertarian, but if not, you can at least make an informed decision.

please consider voting libertarian. ps. shave a cat today for jesus.

Well, Liberty, while not as slick as Reason (or as well-funded!) is also on a few stands. If you want 151-proof libertarianism with an excellent letters section and some-great/some-not articles, go for Liberty. If you want what Time would look like if it weren't run by Democrats, go for Reason. Reason has, in the past, been somewhat soft on certain Republicans. And, as AC says, neither one is the LP. (In fact, both tend to cover Libertarians with a more-jaundiced eye than -- for example -- Time covering the Democrats, IMO.)

I found the Reason article very good, and I'm glad Slashdot featured it. Reason editors reading this might want to consider covering the free software movement in more detail (or else I've just missed what they've done on the subject, I have about a 6 month reading backlog on dead trees). Anyway, if Reason decided to do a story, they should definitely come here and ask questions first, and then submit an early draft here if they can, if they're smart.
JMR

If only you'd get a brain and not confuse "white supremecists" with "gun nuts", you might make a little more sense.

Somebody please moderate down this ignorant troll.

As bad as racism once was in this country, it's much worse now because it's government sanctioned, and official policy of far too many organizations.

That's why I say Vote Libertarian.

Before you mark this down as offtopic as whatever, stop and think HONESTLY for a moment. If you can HONESTLY say that YOU DON'T THINK that THIS COUNTRY would be BETTER OFF if all of the members of Congress were transformed into nude marble statues, then go ahead, moderate this down! But if you're HONEST, and will admit that a petrified Congress would be better for the country than what we have no, do the right thing. Don't moderate this down. Write to your Congressional representatives and make sure he/she knows that you want him/her turned to stone. Set up non-profit organizations dedicated to getting your members of Congress turned to stone. And most important of all, JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY! Peace, Liberty, and Justice for all, amen.

Now an on-line study of web-sites indicates McCain and Bradley leading. Does this mean anything? Probably not, since people that sponsor and run political web-sites are not indicative of the general population's tastes.

Besides, if they were really looking, they would have had to mention Harry Browne or one of the other Libertarian types...

It's possible to separate freedom into two catigories: personal and economic.

Democrats tend to be for personal freedom and against economic freedom.

Republicans tend to be against personal freedom and for economic freedom.

The only political party that I know of that is for *both* types of freedom is the Libertarian Party

• Libertarian Party
  
• Reform Party
  
• Green Party
  
• Socialist Party
  

Not the ones running for office in the good old USA.

Niether the Democrats (who call themselves "Liberals"), nor the Republicans ("Conservitives") are for reducing the size and waste of government.

Of the existing political parties in the US, only the Libertarians are for reducing the size (and power) of government.

Waste your vote on a Libertarian. It's important.

It's actually Less of a waste to vote for a third party candidate than for a democrat or republican.

Think about it. Your vote can't possibly effect which candidate gets elected, there's 250,000,000 people in the USA. Even if only 5% vote, that's still 50 *million* people voting. What your vote can do is make a political statement. And if enough people vote for the Libertarians that they can even get 10% of the votes, then next election people will consider them to be an actual relevent compeditor to the two major parties - and then they'll stop throwing away their vote on candidates who are "the lesser of two evils". If that happens, and a libertarian candidate gets elected, even to Congress, you will have helped change the way this country is run, which is more than you could ever do voting for the republicrats.

LOL! I agree entirely. Of the three, I don't think that RMS really wants to be president - he has more important things to do - that leaves only ESR and Weird Al

But really, instead of righting in "ESR" on the ballot sheet, vote instead for ESR's political party, the Libertarians

Yes, but Bill Bradley is for gun control, a stance that harms freedom to an equal or greater extent than mandatory library censorship.

Remember, as long as we have our guns, we can revolt if it gets too bad. As soon as they take our guns away, we're at their mercy.

The Libertarians are the only party that's for freedom all around, AFAIK.

Well, there's at least one political party that we *know* won't be legislating censorship anytime soon, the Libertarian Party

They're for personal freedom on every issue - which is nessisary for a truely free society.

Well, I was hoping there would be someone left in the race with a chance of winning that I could vote for. Internet Censorship is a fairly small issue, but it's one that will be decided in the next four years, so it matters who gets in now. Given Bush's fascist attitudes on abortion and same sex marriage, and the ominous-sounding "faith based initiatives", I don't think I could go for him either.

Looks like I'll have to throw my vote away on whichever of the libertarians gets nominated.

Rather than push one person's idea of what Libertarianism is, visit the Libararian Party web site and read it at the source.

This is a perfect example of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Our (U.S.) gov't has soooooooooo many regulatory agencies doing things that mean well, but are pretty ridiculous when you sit down and think about them. And OSHA is one of the worst.

OSHA's job is basically to take the common sense of the workplace and make it law. Seems like a good idea on the surface, yes? Flip through the hundreds of binders that house the collected works of OSHA and you'll change your mind. They have rules about EVERYTHING. Railings must be EXACTLY 42 inches off the ground (IIRC), planks may not extend more than 3 feet beyond the edge of a scaffold, et cetera, ad naseum.

If I want to build my railings forty-FOUR inches off the ground, or maybe THIRTY-SIX! I can, but not if I want to pass a building inspection. Why don't I have the right to build my railings whatever height I want? And, more to the point, why shouldn't telecommuters have the right to as un-ergonomic of a workstation as they like, without their employer fearing an OSHA audit?

As geeks, we have a different perspective on workplace ergonomics than most. Many of us live at our keyboards and mice/trackballs/whatever. We're just BEGGING to acquire Repetitive Stress Injury (correct term?). But, as geeks, we should also realize that the only way to do it right is to do it yourself. Some gov't agency requiring your employer to meet some arbitrarily set standard is NOT the right way to do it. YOU should go to YOUR employer and say, "I require better ergonomics. I need a new keyboard, a desk that's X units high and a chair that's blah blah blah. And if you can't cut it, I'm out." You get the idea. I'm sure a lot of you are making $50,000/yr or more, your employer can afford to buy you a new chair at your request. And if they "can't", is that the kind of place you want to work? I know *I'd* prefer to work somewhere where the management cares enough about its employees to either on its own or at their behest provide an ergonomically sound working environment, rather than waiting until some tax-wasting gov't agency forces them to.

Our government simply has its grubby paws in too many aspects of our lives, and with OUR money to boot. Enough is enough.

www.lp.org
www.self-gov.org

MoNsTeR

Signal 11, with all due respect, I'm not sure that I agree with you.

I guess the first order of business is to say "the Computer Geek ticket." But since computer geekdom is what brings most of us to Slashdot, I think the computer part was a given.

Second, you're right, geeks are not limited to computers. But it is those computers that, by and large, bind us. As a large part of our lives, they can, at times, become a cause. (ie, etoy, encryption rights, privacy, etc.) So we choose to focus on that afor the purpose of this discussion.

Thirdly, you're right, geeks do have a wide range of political tastes. But it seems that most of the geeks that I know are Democrats, frequently with Liberatarian leanings. And the more that I've thought about this, the more that it seems logical to me.

We [computer] geeks are all about rules. Every language, standard, RFC and protocol is a set of rules by which we abide. Thanks to things like the RFC system, these rules can be changed. But we recognise the importance of a core set of standards by which further standards can be devloped.

This, IMHO, is quite similar to our US system involving the Constitution, with amendments and, of course, thousands upon thousands of laws within the scope of that Constitution. A rule set that can be modified, with subrules that must fit within the intitial standard.

To many of us, this is extremely logical. It fits into all of our programming knowledge neatly. So the Libertarian Party, whose core value is upholding the Constitution, is an extremely logical party to identify with. Further, Democrats, for the most part, tend to be more in line with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Not always, of course, but more so than Republicans.)

So, we have a political leaning. And we have causes based on our desire to have the freedom to live the way that we like to. To export strong encryption, to use strong excryption, to be free from government monitoring, to be free from censorship, and to be free to engage in the computing practices that we see fit on our own systems, from disassembly to peaceable protest.

In conclusion: Yes, Signal 11, I think that there is a Geek Ticket. The candidate that best matches our common ideals to have the freedoms to take part in the open sourced, copylefted, quasi-socialist ventures that so many of us live for and love so much. We don't need to form a new party or anything, but I do think that it would be helpful for us to determine which candidate best meets our common ideals.

And that's why I think this is a great story with great threads. :)

Well, If I were able to vote next year I'd be voting for Harry Browne. He's the Libertarian Party canidate.

As for the best possible presidential canidate I can think of... ESR for president!

While the Libertarian party continues to prop up scary candidates, the platform of the party is sound -- freedom. They're the only party that hits the positions I like on just about every major issue:

Pro-internet freedom
Pro-reproductive freedom
Pro-gun rights
Anti-Censorship
Pro-religious freedom

Besides, ESR is a big libertarian supporter, and he can do almost no wrong. :)

http://www.lp.org
--

As a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with caring about the poor, promoting social welfare, being generous in spirit as well as materially and in supporting libertarian policies. Most libertarians believe what they do on the basis of sound economic theories supported by empirical studies, sound logic, and critical examination. More importantly, most libertarians support those ideas based upon responsible moral convictions. If I didn't firmly believe that the best way to support the poor was to eliminate welfare, I would never in good conscience advocate such a policy. If you want to know why libertarians support the ideas that they do - look at the arguments, don't just presume that we're all just a bunch of selfish, greedy, heartless (insert your favorite insult here). If you insist on pronouncing judgements, at least do it in an intellectually responsible manner and not simply dismiss the ideas without at least hearing them out.
www.cato.org
www.fee.org
www.perc.org
www.cei.org
www.lp.org
www.free-market.net
www.reason.org