Slashdot Mirror

You see, what most people don't realize is that they're controlled by the little things. It's semantics that dictate how all of those laws, codes, rules, regulations, et cetera, affect your life. They're everywhere, yet nobody really ever reads the fine print, now do they? You should know that all the really messy stuff is in the fine print, the stuff that's so often sprung upon the unwary.

I didn't intend to start an enormous debate, it's just that the tendency to over-romanticize our "democracy" annoys me to no end. Nobody will get off their ass and do anything about their situation. Nearly 100% of the people I know go to work for 40+ hours a week, pay a quarter of their wages/salary to various taxing agencies, and then complain about it. Rinse, and repeat, ad nauseam. You tell them to do something about it, and they tell you you're nuts, one person can't change the system. So they go out and vote for the same regime every election. You've got one half of the US Party, the Republicans, and then you've got the other half, the Democrats. Just because they look and act a little different, and call themselves something else, doesn't mean they're different. Things change cosmetically. Some would argue that they get better or worse, but that's life. Do you get more freedom or less should be the question. Anyway, these same people elect these parties over and over, with either some misguided notion that it will get better, with the cynical notion that it doesn't matter, because they'll get elected anyway, or just out of blind loyalty. Most people fall somewhere in between. Nothing really changes because most people haven't changed. I know I can make a difference with one vote. My one vote doesn't add to the Republican Democrats, and it does add to someone more deserving, even if they're not likely to be elected. That's not the point.

Okay, the USSR was a bunch of republics. So is the UASR (United American Socialist Republics). I personally see very little difference in philosophy. Yes, there is a great difference in the quality of life for most individuals, but I'm speaking of freedom, not quality of life. When was the last time you could do something without having to get a permit, or a license, or some sort of permission from a controlling gov't agency? You pay property taxes, don't you? (only for those property owners out there.) You've got your government bread lines. You have a worker's permit number (SSN, in case you were wondering. Try getting a job without one.) so that the gov't can take their portion of your livelihood. You've got your federal retirement benefits, so you can live off of all the other people with worker's permit numbers when you're old, instead of families taking care of each other like it should be. You have to have assembly permits. The government dictates how you can and cannot use your property. You have to get a license to carry the few types of firearms that are legal for civilian use, and nearly all other weapons are banned. Your children are sent to state schools to learn state-approved material, or you're fined and/or arrested. You can homeschool in most states, but in many (and growing), you have to have a license.

Are you catching the general trend here? People should be allowed to do what they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of other people. Period. Can you tell me one thing that is intrinsically wrong with that statement, that is harmful or detrimental? I doubt it, but I'd like you to try. (Note: Use of the pronoun "you" is not intended to specifically target any one person.)

For those of you with more of a bent towards individual rights over government rule, check out the following. I wish the main points of the TC2K were adopted in every state. As with most, I disagree with parts, but on the whole it's awesome. As for the second, if you've got Libertarian tendencies, vote your conscience, don't swallow the party line.

Texas Constitution 2000


Libertarian Party

Both welfare and social security don't solve the problems they were intended to solve, and they actually cause major problems themselves.

Do you know how many forms you have to fill out , and how many qualifications you have to have to get your own money back from the government under social security? Let me tell you - it's absurd. Out of 100 people who put 15% of their wages into social security, mabie 12 actually get some money back.

The way that the laws are written, someone supported by eithor program can't re-enter the workforce. If someone on social security earns more than 2000 or so working, they loose their social security money - and have to completely re-submit all their forms from scratch.

Welfare is even worse - If someone's living fine off of government money, and can't get a job that would pay much more anyway - why would they ever bother to try to get a job?

If people could spend their own money how they want to spend it, poverty would be much less of an issue than it is now.

Don't make the problem worse - help solve the problem. Vote Libertarian - http://www.lp.org/

You can try to do something about this kind of thing. Get the government out of *your* decisions. Vote libertarian.

Remember: Only ~12% of Americans vote - and of those, they're split half/half between the two major parties. The libertarians only need 7% of the population to vote for them for them to win.

Indeed I am caught out having not read TWON in full.

However, my position is that the Microsoft is in a competitive market where all participants have the ability to make decisions free of coercion.

While I imagine Microsoft does accept certain subsidies (property tax abatements and the like) I personally don't think that their competitors are under any disadvantage attibutable to any alleged "monopoly".

I don't think is is fruitful to debate my libertarianess but I will state my committment to the following statement...

"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 probably have to state my philosophical definition of individual includes those joint endevors including corporations.

I do not per se support or oppose Microsoft. I do however oppose each and every effort of government to punish businesses who have been indicted of nothing except victimless crimes such as 'monopoloy practices'.

If they have committed an actual crime or fraud upon someone, let that person or business come forward and swear out an oath or affadivit against Microsoft.

Allowing government to create actions combined with extensive government business operations (such as the highways) to oppress individuals and businesses is a large problem in and of itself. It leads to organized highway robbery (speeding tickets), the subjugation of citizens to government and a host of other afflictions.

I fear no monopoly save that of government and I hold that no monopoly can exist save those perpetuated by the fist of government.

That VP Gore should wish to be involved is no surprise at all. He can play either add his bat to those wielded by the government enforcers or (if Microsoft can meet his price) he can call them off and instruct them to agree to a lesser punishment more agreeable to Microsoft. Sounds like an example of good cop/bad cop to me.

What more does the average voter expect from a Demopublican with no principles?

Maybe next time voters will vote Libertarian and endorse a society where people's right to buy (or not to buy) software of their choice is respected.

First cigarettes, now software, what next?

The Chinese government is an extremely oppressive one which uses slave labor to produce consumer goods for people in the United States. Their use of the term communist to describe their government is comedic, they are willing to pollute their people's air and water and otherwise ruin their lives in the service of getting good old US greenbacks. Of course, it's perfectly OK for you and Trudeau to be in favor of that type of government, it's a free country. I'll be damned if I'll ever let the US government reduce me (and other members of the working class) to penury so that Senators, Congressmen and President's can live like kings on our back, which is more or less the way things in communist countries always are for the working class. Remember to vote Libertarian! Libertarian party!

> it really doesn't matter when the only people we can vote for are ones who are trying to
> whittle those freedoms away

But, you forget... the Democrat party and the Republican party are not the only parties out there.

There is a party dedicated to repealing a lot of our government's nonsense (of the last, oh, 130 or so years), and restoring liberty to the American people.

They don't get much press, though, because their ideas of "freedom" and "personal responsibility" are chided in the media, and they've yet to live down their unfortunate dominance in the 1970s by anarchists.

Give The Libertarian Party gander, and then tell me there's nobody left for whom to vote.

--Corey

PS - sorry about the duplicate. when logging in and posting at the same time, formatting gets stripped from the post. neat bug.

> it really doesn't matter when the only people we can vote for are ones who are trying to > whittle those freedoms away But, you forget... the Democrat party and the Republican party are not the only parties out there. There is a party dedicated to repealing a lot of our government's nonsense (of the last, oh, 130 or so years), and restoring liberty to the American people. They don't get much press, though, because their ideas of "freedom" and "personal responsibility" are chided in the media, and they've yet to live down their unfortunate dominance in the 1970s by anarchists. Give The Libertarian Party gander, and then tell me there's nobody left for whom to vote. --Corey

I'm gonna go off topic here but, that doesn't make it right, ya know? With only two parties to chose from, it's a safe bet that most candidates follow the party line nearly to the letter. If your vote goes to a Rep., you get a less taxes (maybe), but you'll probably get shafted with ridiculous censorship attempts in the name of the children. If you vote Dem., sure, you'll sleep better knowing that you're helping the less fortunate, but more than likely you'll have to face the fact that if you make more than 50g's a year, you're going to hell. Personally I hate the government and don't trust them with anything. That's why I vote Libertarian [note the .org :)]. And don't even tell me that I'm throwing away my vote. It's because of that philosophy that we have congressmen/senators with 40 year incumbancies(sp?) making policy about things that they have no knowledge of... E-mail tax, gimmie a f***ing break. Screw the Post Office....whoops, did I say that out loud?... sorry. Anyway...

The lack of diversity of parties, on the other hand, is in my opinion a good thing, since it keeps flakey parties from getting elected with a plurality (instead of a majority) -sometimes of only 20 or 30 percent. For example, Hitler came to power with only a third of the vote - but there were too many uncooperating parties spltting the non-moron vote. Ergo the ass won.

Maybe you should change that to "The lack of a Hitler is a good thing." Cause that's what you meant. That was an entirely different system. Congress does NOT elect our chief executive. Even if the ENTIRE congress supported David Duke for Pres, the people are not that stupid (hopefully). The only thing that a two party system accomplishes is stiffling out change in the interest of campaign supporters. Period.

--MessiahXI
messiah11@mindless.com

Please read; though it may sound like flamebait, it brings up a few poignant issues.

"Here's the situation. In the U.S. and abroad, governments just aren't providing the money colleges and universities need to meet sharply increased demands for computing services."

Yup, it starts off with the left-liberal complaint: lack of government funding. And it goes on:

"But the need for vendor assistance may override such concerns. As California State University (CSU) chancellor Charles Reed keeps saying, if you're nervous about vendor funding for campus computing infrastructures, there's only one remedy: "Get used to it."

It so happens that CSU chancellor Reed understands that efficient free markets and private business, NOT bureaucrats or government officials, should guide large institutional decisions.

It should be the students, NOT the taxpayers, that should subsidize any upgrade to a school campus. And if the students or institution cannot afford it, the school must either: [1] close, go out of business (since it was probably inefficient and mismanaged) or [2] seek vendor funding/support. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either scenario, and the long-term effect is better education for all students and the elimination of sub-standard schools.

Now how does this relate to Linux/Unix?

We already know that the Unix/Mac vendors have tried their so-called "monopolistic" practices in educational institutions for years - now there's outcry when Microsoft does the same? What hypocrisy!

And about Linux... this can be the true test of Linux' "freedom." Can anyone make an economically viable model that is as efficient as Microsoft's that can beat out MS's deal to universities in a free market? Didn't think so... so if Linux cannot survive the free market test, it cannot accurately be a "free" software.

After all, the markets will decide, and so far Microsoft is still winning. Linux is a good operating system technically, but the GNU General Public Virus is what makes it economically unviable. Its advocates should really examine the self-destructive nature of supporting the GPL in the Free Market of a truly Free Society.

To realize the power of truly free markets and pure freedom, check out these links:

http://www.capitalism.org

http://www.aynrand.org

http://www.lp.org

Don't overlook the Libertarian Party - they're for strict enforcement of the Bill o' Rights and a consistent, minimal government (police, courts, and national defense), maximum freedom society.

Democracy was put in place in the United States as a method of government that would best preserve Freedom, and prevent Tyranny. Unfortunately, some people have come under the impression that Democracy _is_ Freedom, which it is not.

The United States of America are now the worlds most "powerful" Democracy, but, it is needed to point out that it's no longer a "Free Country." Democracy has become bloated, corrupt, and become a organized version of "mob rule." Because the majority "wants" something has nothing to do with the fundamentals of Freedom.

I highly doubt our fore fathers in-visioned a population and a group of politicians who would put Freedom by the wayside. People are influenced by many factors, and Freedom is no longer a fundamental decision in public policy. Politicians want to "represent the people" more than they want to "insure Freedom." This is not what was intended.

Personally, I still find the USA rating high in the order of "countries which allow their people individual freedoms" and I have no doubt this is where I want to stay. But, every day, we drift farther away from those freedoms, and become a more socialist country, so, I do vote, and I vote for members of the one political party who still remember what the founding principals were, the Libertarian Party.

Indeed, since he is already guilty by reason of being arrested isn't he? This reasoning gone astray is why drug property siezures are out of control, the enforcers start out saying that it will only be used against kingpins, but in reality I see a lot more Nissan Sentras than Ferrari 308s on the DEA auction list.

The Libertarian Party

You can do more than just wish. The Libertarian Party would like to "intervene and take the razor away," but they need your help! Check out their website, then

• Read their site carefully. Don't just dismiss them because one of your friends has some half-baked stereotype. If it turns out you disagree with most of their stands, then at least you can disagree with them from an informed viewpoint. If you disagree with, say, 10% of their positions, ask yourself what percentage of the other parties' positions are disagreeable to you.
• Consider voting for the LP presidential candidate next year. A lot of LP-sympathizers still vote Republicrat because they figure the LP will never win; better to vote for the lesser of two evils. But let's face it -- the Electroral College and winner-take-all system ensure that in many states, there really is no race. I voted in Massachusetts in '88, where there was clearly no doubt that Michael Dukakis would take his home state. Changing the outcome from 70/30 (or whatever it was) to 70+epsilon/30-epsilon (or vice versa) wasn't going to make any difference. Of course, third-party candidates aren't going to win states any time soon, so only their popular vote is tallied. There, my vote does contribute, helping to increase the credibility of the party for the next election (think of the growth of Linux). And if I contribute to the popular vote of a candidate with 1%, my vote has 30 times the weight of a vote going for the 2nd-place candidate with 30%.

  If you live in a state where the race is expected to be close, vote for the LP candidate anyway unless you really feel there is a compelling difference between the two Republicrats. Even if the LP only gets a few percent, if this is more than the difference between the two Republicrat candidates, the losing party may be tempted to go after this "spoiler" vote by adopting some of their positions.

• Consider voting for other LP candidates. The LP usually runs statewide and some local candidates, much more than the upstart Reform Party. If you really think there's a compelling difference between the two Republicrat candidates for, say, a Senate seat, then good for you -- I wish my state were so lucky! But even in such cases, there are lesser statewide offices where the winner is less important, and getting a few percent of the vote would really help the state LP.

  The reason for this is that the Republicrats have rigged the electroral process through ballot access restrictions, which require that candidates from parties without "permanent" status must collect thousands to hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions. This is a big drain on party resources, especially volunteer labor. In many states, a party can get "permanent" status by winning a certain percentage of any statewide office. A House rep doesn't count (that's just part of a state), but there are some minor statewide offices that do.

• Tell your friends about the LP. The LP is pretty well-known among the Net-savvy, but people who just get their news from CNN or the New York Times probably don't even know about the LP.

I don't know about New York specifically, but their web site is at http://www.ny.lp.org You can visit there and either send them email about theit ballot status or join the party.

Anyway, why would you want to vote for John McCain? If you're a libertarian (or even close) he's a terrible choice. (I assume you mean the Arizona Senator) His big issues are tobacco legislation and campaign finance "reform," neither of which is the least bit libertarian. On other issues he's a pretty standard moderate Republican. Nothing to get excited about. None of the Republicans are really worth supporting, but if you must pick one, vote for Steve Forbes. He's at least got a semi-libertarian outlook in his economic views.

Of course, the guy also sounds pretty unintelligent(maybe he's not good on TV).

Nope, he's a moron. As a Minnesota resident, I can tell you that you do *not* want Jesse as president. He's a fraud, a disgrace, and an idiot. Allow me to elaborate.

Fraud Jesse ran on a mildly libertarian platform of less government spending, lower taxes, and generally liberal on social issues. He was pro-concealed carry, said he might consider legalizing pot and prostitution, and was generally an ok guy.

After he got elected, he surrounded himself with moderate Democrats, and did a policy about-face. Now he thinks tax cuts are "irresponsible," he wants to spend more money on light rail and education. He's against school choice. We haven't heard a word about vouchers, pot, or prostitution, and he's generally taken the Democratic side on every issue. We might have voted for the Democratic choice for governor.

If you're a Democrat, that may sound good to you, but the point is that the man broke many of his campaign promises and has no compunctions about lying if he thinks it's necessary. And he hasn't done much of anything towards repealing restrictions on social issues. I wish he would, as that's what he campaigned on. In short, he's a fraud.

Disgrace Jesse seems to delight in shocking people. He published a book which features his sex life and drug use. He refereed at a WWF event. At one point he started yelling at a welfare mother during a press conference. He seems to be more interested in the publicity than anything else. I don't think he ever expected to win, so now that he's won, he probably figures he can milk the system for all he can get.

idiot I really don't think he has any sort of political philosophy. He got into politics to bolster his faltering carreer as a talk show host, and he seems to form his political opinions on the spur of the moment. His campaign adds featured action figures showing him "fighting special interests." (which, by the way, he's been courting as badly as any major-party politician) In short, he's got nothing to offer but a simple freak show. His policies are those of a mundane centrist Democrat.

In summary, please don't vote for him if he runs for President. I'm embarrassed enough that he's our governor. I don't want to put up with his crap for another 4 years.

If you want a real alternative, check out the Libertarian Party

The Libertarian party is the only American political party that is 100% pro-freedom. We support privacy and free speech in all issues, all the time. We support free crypto and zero government regulation of the net and other media. You're exactly right: there's not much difference between the major parties. But the LP *is* different, and it's a great way to send the message that you're fed up with government encroachment on our freedoms.

This is nothing new.

"Most people don't know it, but the government can take people's homes, cars, and money without charging them with a crime--and the burden of recovery is on the owners!" -- Forfeiting Our Property Rights: Is Your Property Safe from Seizure? by Representative Henry J. Hyde

Mostly due to the War on Drugs, forfeiture laws have become unconstitutional. Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. have many incentives to keep property:

• - They get to KEEP it if you are found guilty, which allows them to fund themselves through asset forfeiture. The middle/upper middle class are often targetted more often as "suspects" because they have more assents which law enforcement can use/auction off than the poor, and can't afford the million-dollar lawyers which the rich can.
• - The legal system in the U.S. currently holds the opinion that "property can be responsible for the crime." We all know that it is the user of the computer, or the car, or the gun, or the expensive yacht who is at fault for the crime-- these are all just tools. But law enforcement and the justice system do not currently hold that opinion. They believe the property is just as evil as the criminal, and the property must be proven innocent also. (Otherwise they get to keep it and fund themselves, as above.)
• - The current social & justice system opinion is that guilty parties must be stripped of their livelihood (including any property they own which they might enjoy/have purchased with ill-gotten gains) -- whereas the more rational approach, and the more successful approach, is rehabilitation.

Until the laws are changed prohibiting the law enforcement agencies from keeping property they seize, it comes down to this: police target a "suspect" with "nice" assets and seize the property for themselves, sometimes liquidating it even before trial, and even if the suspect is proven innocent.

I suggest reading some of the excellent articles at fear.org, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation. There are many problems with the current system which must be reformed.

Yes, they can take your stuff, all they need is a warrant -- which can be very easy to get. And then the burden is on YOU -- how do YOU demonstrate that the property is innocent of a crime. But it gets worse than that. Sometimes they LOSE TRACK of your property (because law enforcement seizes a lot of property) and you are unable to get it back. Like I said before, a lot of this has to do with bad laws passed by politicians trying to "get tough on the War on Drugs":

For more than 200 years, the federal government has had the authority to take property through forfeiture. Beginning about 1980, the number and value of seizures started growing dramatically as law enforcement agencies began relying more heavily on forfeiture to fight drug traffickers and other organized crime figures. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 expanded the government's seizure authority and established forfeiture funds within the departments of Justice and the Treasury.\1 Recently, asset forfeiture laws were expanded to cover crimes associated with money laundering and certain financial institutions-related offenses. Collectively, enforcement actions associated with these changes have resulted in the value of Justice's and Treasury's seized property inventories growing from a reported $33 million in 1979 to almost $2 billion in 1994.

THE PROBLEM

As asset forfeiture programs grew in the 1980s, our attention was focused primarily on the management of seized and forfeited property. We found that property was not being properly cared for after it was seized, resulting in lost revenue to the government when the property was sold. Much has been accomplished in this area since the 1980s. However, some significant problems remain with seized property management, and continued oversight is necessary. Also, the departments of Justice and the Treasury continue to operate two similar but separate seized asset management and disposal programs without plans for consolidation, despite legislation requiring them to develop a plan to consolidate postseizure administration of certain properties.\2

In recent years, interest in the asset forfeiture programs has extended beyond asset management to questioning whether forfeiture laws are applied appropriately and effectively and consideration of how forfeiture proceeds should be used.

-- from The Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, Asset Forfeiture Programs.

I suggest everyone in the U.S. join the libertarian party in an effort to return to more constitutional principles.

To apply pure logic, one would think that low income areas would be the places where families needed to cook economical meals, and spend less in restraunts and convenient stores (meaning 24 hour a day corner stores with prices 3x what grocery stores charge). So, you might try to take a logical leap, and say "There are probably less convenient stores and restraunts in low income areas." BBBBBBzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Wrong answer.

7-11 and McDonalds have known for a long long long time that low income areas are good markets for them to expand into.

While we would all like to sit here "High And Mighty" saying how wonderful internet access is, and how people of a certian income or color need to have it, that's not how the world works.

If they want it, they will get it. Before you say they can't, check if they have cable, and how often they dine in a restraunt. Then look at the $9.95/month internet service ads and $399 computer that are on about every third page of thier local newspapers. Do you truely believe that there are people out there who choose to have internet, but can't get it (but somehow can have cable TV, eat in Burger King or McDonalds daily, have a $800 car stereo, etc...).

Now, I am not saying that people of a ethnic background, or people of an income level all have made a choice to be that way. Not at all. I just think it's a little short sighted to say it's color or income that prevents people from getting on the internet. As for evidence, I think McDonalds and 7-11 have pretty well defined where they can make a profit, why not deal with a basic need like food first?

Why would the internet be any diffrent than dining habits, cable TV, or anything else? I guess maybe I am not seeing this as a color thing, because the only clear thing I can see about the internet is income levels, maybe. But I would agree that the internet isn't for everyone, just like everything else.

Not everyone watches CNN, not everyone reads the Wall Street Journal, not everyone goes to college... Making the government pay for access so that everyone could isn't going to mean everyone will, and that everyone will benifit from it. All it will mean is that you gave the government more control over a part of your life, and another reason to justify taking more money for "taxes" out of your paycheck.

(BTW, I believe in the LP which is my primary reason to object to seeing making another government run program a bad thing, nothing to do with race, color, money, any of that.. We don't live in a free country anymore at all, if you think so, you have confused freedom with democracy. Democracy is just orginized mob rule, which can be as bad or worse as tyrany. What if tomarrow the majority desides that we should all drive Mini-Vans? Because "the people vote for it" or "it will make life safer and more consistant" doesn't mean it has anything to do with freedom. And yes, there isn't a country in the world I would rather be in, I like it here, I just think we're slipping a little bit into "we should be like the EU" Freedom does mean not opressing people of any race, religion, sex, or income. Socialism is a diffrent belief, which intends to insure that everyone be given similar goods and treatment, and calling that fair. Freedom allow one to benifit from thier own hard work, if you want to free the oppressed, give them the chances just like everyone else. If you want socialism, thier are plenty of other countries to choose from.)

I'm one of the handful of elected local officials and I'm also from Vermont where we elected a Libertarian to the Vermont House last year. We ran 40 candidates last year and we hope to run 100 in 200 in VT. Hopefully, we'll elect more people to the VT House then. What it takes is people who are interested in freedom to step forward and get involved.

Even on the internet you can get involved without much work. If you are working the RC5-64 contest and are on the Slashdot.org team think about switching to the Libertarians for Privacy team.

Also, if you want to see someone stand up for more freedom in the 2000 Presidential election then we need to start now. We could start a new party, but the LP is already organized in all 50 states and you probably agree with 80-95% of what the LP is pushing for anyway. We need to increase the size to become more of a player. Join the LP today.

Hardy Macia
politics@catamount.com
Vermont LP

I'm one of the handful of elected local officials and I'm also from Vermont where we elected a Libertarian to the Vermont House last year. We ran 40 candidates last year and we hope to run 100 in 200 in VT. Hopefully, we'll elect more people to the VT House then. What it takes is people who are interested in freedom to step forward and get involved.

Even on the internet you can get involved without much work. If you are working the RC5-64 contest and are on the Slashdot.org team think about switching to the Libertarians for Privacy team.

Also, if you want to see someone stand up for more freedom in the 2000 Presidential election then we need to start now. We could start a new party, but the LP is already organized in all 50 states and you probably agree with 80-95% of what the LP is pushing for anyway. We need to increase the size to become more of a player. Join the LP today.

Hardy Macia
politics@catamount.com
Vermont LP

There is the Libertarian Party (infact, I worked on their first web site). Despite electing a handful of people to local positions and getting nationwide ballot access for President, the party is in general of no influence in electoral politics. They have had a great influence on fighting ballot measures for bonds to build stadiums and such.

The LP also has a very extreme position on freedom, the theory being that everybody else talks about freedom, then votes for the CDA. However I do believe that there is a place for a more moderate and acceptable freedom-oriented party. But it would have to deal with the meme of extreme Libertarianism which has already been put out there.

The funny thing is that being part of the global marketplace depends on maximum freedom for citizens, combined with effective justice to avoid corruption and fraud. Up until now, the US has been the leaders in globalism because of our reasonable justice system and reasonable freedom. However other countries are catching up to us, and we will have to become more free in the future to stay ahead.

By repeatedly voting for Republicans and Democrats, the American people have advocated this kind of war on the Constitution. And everyone here that has continued to vote for members of these two parties is a co-conspirator.

The *only* way you're going to stop this rush towards fascism is to stop voting for these fools, and to start voting Libertarian, and to get your friends to do the same. Even if you don't support every Libertarian position, you will at least begin to counter-balance the always-pro-regulation fascists who infest our governments.

As one prominent Libertarian likes to say:

If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got.

Insanity is defined as expecting different results from the same actions. Currently, the voting public is displaying insanity.

Stop it now. Start the change.

Thank you for this opportunity to advocate. Now back to your regular /. discussion

--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page

How about the important link... :> LP's statement against the Digital Telephony and Communications Privacy Improvement Act of 1994. "Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes enactment of the proposed Digital Telephony Act as a serious infringement of civil liberties and a gross violation of property rights."

That means easing export controls on computers and encryption products that can already be purchased on the open market.

But then he follows that up with:

At the same time, as the use of encryption programs increases, American law enforcement must always have the resources to stay ahead of the criminal use of that technology.

He just don't get it, folks. The only way to "stay ahead of the criminal use of that technology," even partially, is some kind of key escrow. And that will only work with law-abiding criminals who use legal encryption software. Ultimately, that is not the answer for people who live in a (nominally) free country.

I'm sticking with the Libertarian Party. They may not be perfect, but I agree with them a heck of a lot more often than I agree with any other party.

--

> They will take power away from big government and gladly allow big business to take up the slack.

WRONG. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. The only way they can do that is to sell something that people like. A very democratic process. Without government intervention, the free market MUST provide consumers with the best possible products. This gets perverted when government incentives exist (subsidies, special protections). (side note: I believe there is a case for anti-trust law, but otherwise I am against governmental interference in the operation of a market.)

Corporations DO NOT wield the same power as govnement. They cannot force people to buy their products (M$ excepted - see above note on antitrust), and they cannot put people in jail because they don't like their personal choices.

The point I'm trying to make here is that governmental power is coercive power. Taking that power away simply leaves we the citizens with less coercion, and more choice. This is a Good Thing. Coercive power cannot be "snatched up" by corporations, or anyone - coercive power exists solely within the government.

> The purpose of government is to do whatever the people want it to do.

WRONG. Madison's essays on the politics of faction make some clear warnings about a minority of people (read: corporations, christian right, etc) forcing their world-view upon everyone. The purpose of government is to allow people to do as they wish while allowing others the to same , and resolving disputes arising from the above (civil courts).

Example: Let's pretend that the South won the Civil War, and slavery were still legal there. Even if the majority of people think it's OK, its the government's sole function to protect the individual liberty of its citizens. Consensus does not equal justice.

Once again, pardon my rantings if you disagree... just give me a good retort. That's what America's all about (to me): open discussions and wildly different points of view.

OK: The libertarian party home page is at http://www.lp.org/. Other sites I enjoy are the ACLU, the Internation Society for Individual Liberty, and NORML.


- jonathan.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
-- C. S. Lewis

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

We live in a nation where our essential liberties-- those guaranteed us by the foundation documents of our government-- have come under constant attack: free and peacable assembly, free speech, illegal search and seizure, and free exercise of religion, to name but a few.

Our nation was founded with the overriding guiding precept of Liberty. Somewhere along the way we have lost that ideal, and replaced it by making Democracy alone our watchword-- a poor substitute, for Democracy in and of itself places no limits upon the enaction of a popular tyranny.

The Libertarian Party website is here.

There probably were many astronauts who died in space whose deaths were never revealed to the public. Who knows how many astronauts/cosmonauts died prior to the first _televised_ landing?

The people probably would not stand for sending men to perish on the moon on the taxpayers' bill - it's not good public relations. Nixon's speech would have been the best propaganda to ensure NASA's bloated budget had the mission failed.

Anonymous Bovine

true liberty - http://www.lp.org
real public policy - http://www.cato.org

We, here in the USA live it the lungs of a "drama driven tragity" created by the media. If it's got blood, it sells, and they can put it on camera. If it's got a minor involve, they can get a shot of a teenager crying, and it sells. If it's weather related, they can play some hurricane footage, and it sells.

There in lies the question, with TV driven media news, they run into countless problems with modern stories. How do you get a good camera angle on "red flag words in encripted messages" when it's not even a meterial thing? How do you get your news anchor to sound interesting in a 10 second advertizement for the news when he is constantly calling a tech for help to retreve his email, and you want him to talk about processor power relevance of increasing encription key strength? How can you do a story that would take the full 30 minutes of the news to explain the background information alone to 90% of the audiance?

Yes, it is big news, yes it is a serious consern for all Americans, and the whole world, yes it really really in important to seperate the myth for the fact. But which one of the "news professionals" who spent 5 years studying english, makeup, and political topics like welfare, which one of these clowns do you pick to try to investigate the story?

Look at the securety breach at LANL, and the impact. That was easily (at least) one of the biggest events in national securty in the last century. How may people saw anything at all about it on the news? And when? The _couldn't_ cover it, because they didn't know how. It got _some minor_ media coverage at least a month after the story broke. Why? Because, it took that long to get a political figure (some thing to put on camera) to make a public statement about it. That's all they can cover, that's all they know how to do. They cover "statements" from famous faces. They don't cover what moves around from one hard drive to another. That story is real, they have facts, and they STILL can't cover it.

How in your right mind can you believe that they can cover something like this, when it's much harder to even figure out what the hard facts are?

(Steping onto my soap box) The REAL problem is that in the USA, the mass mob mentality has no clue what the diffrance between freedom and democracy is. Democracy was a tool to insure freedom, not other way around. Let run rampant, the people can be thier own supressive dictator. Because the "majority" want's things one way, that does NOT insure freedom for all. This is why anyone who really cares about what seperates the USA from any other country in the world is a member of the Libetarian Party where the _goals_ of the founding fathers are supported, not the mob mentality. Freedom is being lost to a political machine that makes the politcal machines in the past (like the whole gerrymandering thing) look laughable by comparison. No other place in the world has given it's people to rise and fall, stand on thier own two feet, and succeed based soley on thier own strength as much as the USA has. Yet, every day, that chance gets smaller and smaller, as we all surcome to the "mob rule by orderly democracy." Think for one minute... "Concensus is the biggest enemy of Truth" Just because everyone agrees, it doesn't make it _right_. Without our freedom, we are doomed to loose everything the USA was originally founded for.

So, HELL YES, this is big news, this is important, this should be on the front page of the local papers and the lead story at least ONE time... But, what can you expect from a country that is govern by a mob who is educated by Hollywood?

thanks dude, i hate those right wing assholes too! libertarian for life! oh yeah i dont use use those half-assed quote thingies either so FUCK YOU

I'm not sure I'd go as far as the Libertarian Party does (in a press release that hasn't shown up on their web site yet), but I do wonder why anyone's surprised that the two main places that breed this antisocial behavior (prisons and schools) are both places that concentrate large numbers of people somewhere they don't want to be.

If the Libertarian Party had its way, cable fraud would be a civil suit, not a criminal one, and she would have simply written a couple of cease and desist letters and been done with it. But nooooo, Big Brother has to get involved... and I'm sorry, anytime the fuzz gets involved, you Have Been Hassled.

http://www.lp.org for more info.

I'm a Libertarian. I assume you are familiar with their ideas, but in case not, the have a web page. anyway, in particular:

I want to know if you're one of those people who basically ascribes to the doctrine that the world doesn't owe anyone a living, so you shouldn't take care of anyone else.

The former does not imply the latter. I think it is in one's self interest to do good things for those one cares about, and to be polite and helpful to a point to those around you. I am also a proponent of individual rights in the Jeffersonian sense. I don't think I have an obligation to help others, but that does not mean that I don't.

But the views that you expressed sound like the views of the dog-eat-dog proponent, that is, one who believes that because a dog can eat another dog, and sometimes will, that's a perfectly fine situation.

Well the human equivalent would be murder, which I am opposed to, if that is what you mean. I am not particularly concerned with the welfare of dogs, so if the owner of both dogs consented, I guess I would not have a problem with it. As far as i know dogs never eat each other.

You see, the problem with microsoft is not that they don't have the "right" to do what they've done. In the Hobbsian sense they have the right to do anything that they can get away with. On the other hand, they don't have the right to do what they've done in the sense of deserving it, or it being morally permissible.

Microsoft has done some sleazy things, and some of them are probably immoral. But i don't think the simple fact of making a closed, buggy, undocumented, unfair, unsupported OS is. If they are guilty of fraud, slander, breach of contract, intellectual property theft, or other crimes that have victims, I wholeheartedly support going after them for it. But the antitrust laws are not about that. Netscape does not have a right to its market share, so Microsoft did not steal it from them.

do you think that narcotics should be regulated?

No.

Do you think that crack dealers are simply "good businesmen" (they are selling a product for which there is a large demand)?

They are selling a destructive product, and I disapprove of their actions. But I do not feel that I (or by extension my government) has the right to ban it. The War on Drugs would require its own thread to discuss properly.

Just like it should be illegal for microsoft to compete by filing hundreds of lawsuits against its competitors,

Well this is an unjustified use of force, and the aggrieved party would be justified in countersuing for lost damages.

sending them hundreds of pounds of mail every day

If they ask Mirosoft to stop and they refuse, then this is a violation of their property rights (they own their mailbox) and they would be justified in suing.

flooding their email box with messages, or ping flooding their competitors websites into oblivion,

Same arguments as above. This is a violation of property rights.

It should be illegal for them to build addiction devices into their products.

You chose to use that product, and you have every right not to. It is true that doing so is inconvenient, but it is not the job of Microsoft to make sure that its competition does not fall behind.

But the problem with us coming to an understanding seems to be that your view of morality is "anything not directly violent is ok".

You are operating on the premise "anything immoral shouild be illegal." I reject that premise. The question is not whether something is immoral, it is whether the government is morally justified in using force to impose its will.

Why should the government dictate that blacks have to be able to use the same bathrooms in private establishments as whites.

No, the question is "why should the government force blacks to use different bathrooms?" The primary problem in the South was not private discrimination. It was laws that *required* discrimination. repealing those laws would have eliminated most of the discrimination.

Or why should blacks be able to sit in the front of the bus like whites in privately owned buses.

Well I am not sure whether the buses were private or not back then, but I believe that it was illegal to mingle whites with blacks on busses. If the bus was in fact privately owned, and the owner chose to put blacks in the back, I would not have any business objecting. This does not make it ok, it simply is not right for the government to make it illegal.

Or why shouldn't a company be able to hire only white males solely because they're white males? It's their business if they want to do that.

If a business chose to do that, I would allow it. I would not approve. And such a business would pay a price for this, because qulified women and minorities would go to the competition.

I'm assuming that you're against equal employment laws, correct? And you believe that child labor should be acceptable because either the kid or his parents should be responsible for the kid.

Yes for the first. Yes on the second assuming that the welfare of the child is not clearly endangered.

And I assume that loansharking should be perfectly legal.

I am not sure what "loansharking" is, but if you mean lending money, then yes.

And that electricity and water companies should be able to charge whatever they want.

I would be inclined to say yes, assuming that they do are not owned/operated/subsidized/regulated by the government.

If the water company decided one day that they were going to charge everyone 100% of their assets for a drop of water, that's fine.

No one would pay it, so if they want to waste their time, go ahead.

And there's nothing wrong with what OPEC did, is there? And I assume that price-fixing should be perfectly legal.

OPEC was not too successful. They made a small amount of extra money for a few years, before prices collapsed, and it would have been even less successful, had our government not exascerbated the problem with price controls. Price-fixing in general does not work too well.

Out of curiosity, since you're dependent on your parents for food etc. in the first X years of your life, do they in effect own you? Should they be able to starve you, etc. if they want? Send you out naked into the snow if they don't want you in their house or wearing their clothes?

I sense that you are more interested in making me look bad than actually finding out my opinions, but I don't really care.

I think there is an argument to be made that you are obligated to take care of your children, because you made a unilateral decision to bring them into the world. I was never consulted about whether my parents had me or not, so in a sense they have a duty to get me to the point where I can take care of myself. I am not too sure about that argument. Children are a special case because they cannot care for themselves.

What do you propose to restrict? What laws do you say should be on the books?

If you are actually interested, look into Libertarianism. If your point is that I am a member of the lunatic fringe, then you are free to think that.

If technology is your issue, and your going to vote based on that, I would suggest that you look at the Libritarian Party, where your vote against someone will actually count as a vote for your platform. They have a strong stance on Internet Censorship, Cryptology, etc...

Personally, I won't vote for Gore for MANY reasons, I might vote LP, but I am going to wait and see who the choices end up being.

Has this changed?

At least the LP is running Apache, even if it is on Solaris...

Politics as usual, Democrats try "feel good" stuff, which is all talk with nothing behind it, Republicans don't rate except with the silent majority, so not as much "foot in mouth" syndrome, and the Libertarian Party firmly lives up to it's promises, and therefore goes ignored, because no one knows how to deal with politicians that do and believe what they say...

Has this changed?

At least the LP is running Apache, even if it is on Solaris...

Politics as usual, Democrats try "feel good" stuff, which is all talk with nothing behind it, Republicans don't rate except with the silent majority, so not as much "foot in mouth" syndrome, and the Libertarian Party firmly lives up to it's promises, and therefore goes ignored, because no one knows how to deal with politicians that do and believe what they say...

You can always vote for a third party as a protest vote. If there are enough protest votes, they might even win, or at least give the others a bit of a shake. I'll be voting Libertarian.

I would vote for the most qualified squirrel, but not are running at present.

Alan R. Light
Monroe, NC

and I'm definately not in cohoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".

Who are you in cahoots with, then? The party that puts people in jail for life for things they do in the company of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes? Or the one that wants to censor and regulate the Internet and all other modes of expression at every turn? Which one am I talking about, the Republicans or Democrats? Doesn't make a difference.

At least read the platform at lp.org before you slag the only political party in America that just wants to leave us alone.

Do you think that any company in America could survive the media firestorm that would surround them refusing to serve black customers? Be real. They'd be so boycotted it would be crazy. On the other hand, with all of our laws and the accompanying lawsuits, has racism disappeared? Is it expected to soon?

How can we continue to stomach laws that limit human freedom and at the same time preach freedom of information? You either believe in freedom OR you believe in force. That's all there is to it.

Simon White

May I respectfully remind the community that it is the Libertarian Party, not the GOP, that is fully committed to less government and honesty therein. Of late we have seen the GOP present a sham trial of a known rapist and traitor, allow the lie that is the current "budget surplus" to go unchallenged, and generally sit idly by and allow government of the people to crumble.

Makes Nero look like George Washington.

And it makes me sick.

For more info, go peek at the Libertarian Party website. You might learn something.

"We cannot legislate against every stupid thing people will do."
-- Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, Governor of Minnesota

For one, I allready have to pay for garbage collection. It's about $15/month to a private company. They provide the big plastic things to put the trash in, and drive arround and pick it up. Easy, and worth it, IMO.

Note that the LP (Libertarian Party) believes that the government's place is to protect life and property. They believe the government should have both a police force, as well as a military force. However, our military should not be running arround the planet interfering with other countries. We are not the worlds' police force. The police and defence would be paid for by tarrifs and service fees. Sort of like taxes I suppose, but your money goes to a specific service, not to the general fund that they can do anything they want with. It's very specific, and you can tell what they are doing, full disclosure.

And yes, if you don't own a car you shouldn't have to pay for the roads. If you want to ride the train, for example, the train fares you pay go toward maintaining the tracks and the trains themselves. If you drive a car, you allready pay property taxes on the car. I would think that a good soultion for the roads is to charge you a "road maintance fee" instead. As I said, it's basicly the same as a tax, but you only pay if you use the service and the money goes only to certain things. The DMV arround here probably collects billions in property taxes and Driver Licence fees. That should support the roads reasonably well.

Basicly, the government should provide services and charge for them like a business. What do you think taxes are? It's just that you can't see where taxes are going, and they always seem to go up with no benefit to me. In a fee-for-service structure, you know exactly what you are paying for.

If the government had to live within it's means and charge a fair fee for it's services we would all be better off. If the people won't pay for a service, we don't need it. This gives the power to the people, where it belongs.

It should be noted that I do not speak for the LP. I've just been researching them since I couldn't find anyone to vote *FOR*. The big 2 parties both suck, and I was looking for someone. The way I see it, not voting just tells them we want more of the same. Voting for the LP tells them I want my freedom. In any case, voting for any other party tells them I am not happy, which I want to do. I want the Republicrats to know I am not happy at all with the way they are handling things.

Do a little research before dismissing them as a group. You may be surprised, if you're willing to be open minded and logical about it. Compare the pros and cons and make up your own mind. The message you posted was just regurgitated drivel from the Republicrats, THINK!

For a good place to get info on the LP platform head over to LP Home.

But here it is: [my emphasis]

6.4.4
All the [admittedly! -ac] intrusive investigative powers have to do with the preservation of 'public safety' in the broad definition given earlier. The approach suggested is to incorporate all these powers into one statute which would provide in its title an easily [mis-]understood purpose, quite separate from any agency. It might, for instance, be titled the 'Aid to Public Safety Act'. Such a title would be precise in terms of objective, reassuring in terms of community expectation and positive in its statement. The various investigatory powers should be couched in purpose or objective terms. The specification of the means by which any particular purpose may be realised should be eschewed. For example, the problems created by the current definition of a listening device in the AFP Act when the purpose should simply be stated as being for 'the transmission of data'.

So, this is pretty much what everyone suspects is going around in these reports: how to mislead the public into giving away their privacy rights. The really stunning sections refer to all the new tracking devices they hope to be able to install in your vehicles and personal belongings.

Learn to vote, folks.

Voting Libertarian might be a good choice.

-Proudly "Anonymous" Coward