Slashdot Mirror

The Constitution Party is great if you want a Christian Dominion instead of a Constitutional Republic, I suppose.

They'd like to take away my porn, so they are not my cup of tea. :D

I don't care if you call him a waffle or someone that has finally seen the light, but keep in mind that Barr has refuted a lot of his previous positions. Like the rest of us he has slowly grown sick of the neo-cons in power.

Whether it's because he's waffling or he's seen the light he has changed his positions. I used to hate his positions but for now I'll accept he has changed though I'd still watch his actions. What really surprised me was that he worked with the ACLU on privacy issues. A conservative working with fake or pseudo-liberals, really civil liberals?

I suppose "fake or pseudo-liberals" needs explaining to some. The way "liberal" is used today in the US isn't how is used to be used. The original liberal or Classical Liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, believed in liberty and small government. The political party that comes closest to that meaning today is the Libertarian Party.

Falcon

I think perhaps you missed my point. I am not saying that abuses don't happen

Perhaps you missed my point, abuses do happen. And if the government gets the power to deny anonymity then it will abuse that power.

There's an old saying about boxes and the order they are to be used in. If you oppose a regime that doesn't respect the voice box, the answer isn't whispering, it's moving to the next box.

Yes, I've said it myself. The first box is the soap box, speech, therefore the right to anonymous speech. Would you want your boss to be able to fire you because you exercised political speech he or she disagreed with? Would you want Brownshirts to monitor demonstrations and protests and take down names? I've also talked about the second box, the jury box and jury nullification. For the third box, ballot box, I support the Libertarian Party. Lastly I support the Right to Bare Arms.

Falcon

Well, damn. If only there were another option, a third option...

There are three pseudo-viable third options; parties that are on the ballot in enough states that should they win them all, they win the election.

Bob Barr

Cynthis McKinney

Chuck Baldwin

I plan on voting for Barr. Sure, he'll lose, but so will one of the two major party candidates. Why do the media insist that voting for a loser is a wasted vote? Could it be that they are owned by corporations, who bribe both candidates to get legislation (like the Bono Act and the PATRIOT act) passed with 100% or nearly so of the vote?

Really? According to this page, both you and the person I replied to are both idiots.

http://www.lp.org/platform

  1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

  1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

While the CP and LP have some similarities, they've got radically different core beliefs. The Constitution Party wants to restore the US government to its Biblical roots - it's much more obvious if you read their candidate's literature and not just the party's. The Libertarian Party is aggressively secular, believing in personal freedom and non-initiation of force, and thinks the government should stay out of religion.

I'm religious, and Libertarian, and while there are LPers whose anti-religious positions annoy me, and while the party appears to have been taken over by right-wing lizards recently, it's far far better than supporting a political party that believes in giving government power to enforce religion, and I'm skeptical about the CP's support for free markets and freedom of travel.

But I agree with you on Nixon - GWBush has been the worst president since Roosevelt and probably Lincoln. On the other hand, if you propped up Nixon again, it'd probably be Cheney moving Nixon's mouth and waving his arms the way he did with Bush.

Wait, how can someone who is supposedly a libertarian believe in the banning of abortion, unless they aren't actually a libertarian at all?

Unfortunately, and though I wish it weren't true, though the party platform is such that government should stay out of abortion there are some Libertarians who are pro-life.. Libertarians for Life for instance oppose abortions. Like they, whoever they is, used to say about the Republican Party the Libertarian Party is a big tent.

Falcon

ummmm....... NO I'll be voting for Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party for President, of course.

I'll reply to this as an AC rather than moderating you then. The average political post seems to center around a few things...

1. Protection of the little guy - stop allowing big corporations to use the law/lobbying to create an unfair environment. See DRM, Patent trolls, subsidies given without stipulation and no-bid contracts. Most think it's ridiculous you can patent a seed to which you found in a government vault, which they obtained from the wild. You can.

Enforcing a free market is a conservative value.

2. Government staying out of our personal lives. This would fall under the small government category/give us personal freedoms. These are views in keeping with the constitution/bill of rights. I'd say that the constitution has a Libertarian feel to it. This isn't the viewpoint of the Republican party, so you have us there.

3. Most of us don't seem to be for most welfare in it's current state, view SS and medicade as a fiscal disaster in need of much revamping, etc. Conservative/Libertarian.

I think in general we're all for a competent government, whatever form that may be, so long as it will stay competent/for the people. As a Republican you do realize that in the past 20 years, your party has changed drastically. Government debt goes up the most during your terms, often setting new records. Not fiscally conservative.

In terms of the past 8 years, we're tired of the government being very competent at taking away the rights we're guaranteed to have in that "goddamned piece of paper". We're tired of how competent they are at lying, but incompetent they are at leading. They're experts at returning favors for those who gave them money or ran their political party, but they fail horribly of their ONLY responsibility, which is to uphold and defend that piece of paper. They spit on the hundreds of thousands who have died to defend this country and its ideals and the people who have given them the power in the first place.

Maybe that's why we appear liberal. We cannot stand the current adminstration, and if your quote is any indication, you are a traditional republican. I suggest you check out the Libertarian party's main points, http://www.lp.org/platform, as they are more in line with traditional Republican viewpoints. The one main area you might disagree on is the US's role in the world.

Vote libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/

Bob Barr and Wayne Root, 2008. They're businessmen, not lawyers and they hate big government.

Uh, yeah... so he'll also be proposing tax cuts? Since it's actual responsibilities will be LESS then, right?

Yes, The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!.

You're an idiot if you think government will get smaller or less intrusive, under EITHER party.

You're an idiot if you think the Libertarian Party is EITHER party.

The FUD against the LP it working pretty good.

Falcon

His prediction is fatalistic, but you need only go to the Libertarian Party website to see that the Libertarian Party is against any regulation of the private sector. It's not a leap to imagine that a corrupt businessperson would use his freedom to discriminate against his workers, possibly even abusing his workers to the extent that a state of serfdom exists.

And money a central theme to the Libertarian Party. They even have their own currency, the Liberty Dollar. Sometimes, it looks as if the party is obsessed with money hoarding. And some Libertarians are. I would think most are not however.

Libertarianism is about the freedom to own slaves.

You would certainly be able to indenture yourself, if you choose to — to anyone, who would want such a thing from you.

99% of people who support libertarianism will end up being serfs if their plans ever succeeds

Serfdom (and the outright slavery) disappeared, not because of laws or regulations, but because it was inefficient. Re-read your Marx-volume. As the means of production evolve, the uninterested slaves' labor falls further and further behind in value — despite being cheaper — than that of motivated free workers.

So stop this "slavery" fear-mongering, and smears. For decades the country's policy-makers have been moving away from Libertarianism despite most Americans being in the Libertarian corner of the politics. The results, to name the most obvious are:

1. the insurmountably complex tax-code, the cost of which is hurting us more and more
2. insane amounts of red-tape, hurting both businesses and consumers alike;
3. a large public-welfare system (belovingly known as "safety net") which is now able to sustain itself through votes of millions of beneficiaries and hundreds of thousands of governments employees busying themselves with the process of handing out taxpayers' monies. Politicians used to appeal to the compassion of the givers — nowadays they increasingly aim directly for the greed of the receivers as the more numerous segment of the voters.

And all you can say against that is nonsense like: "Libertarians want to bring back slavery"?.. Pathetic...

Ugh. No. You're so wrong I don't know where to start.

Slavery is anathema to libertarian ideology, because it allows one person to impinge on the rights of another. That's a fundamentally Bad Thing; in fact the whole point of libertarianism is the maximization of personal freedom, up to the point where your freedom to do something starts impinging on someone else's.

Basically you've constructed a straw man and then proceeded to tear it down; congratulations. It's a good argument except that it has nothing to do with any actual libertarians that I've ever met, nor the positions of either the Libertarian party or the other similar state-level parties.

If you want to criticize libertarian theory, that's fine -- there are many valid critiques of it. But saying that it advocates or legitimizes slavery is just false and stupid, and a great way of advertising your own ignorance.

Liberatarians are okay with corporations drug testing, possibly even DNA testing their employees.

I know of no libertarian, small "l" or big "L", who agrees it's alright for corporations to require drug tests. Actually the Libertarian Party was started by Republicans when Nixon refused to legalize at least hemp, aka marijuana, among other issues like the gold standard. He had a presidential commission investigate whether hemp should be legalized. He then said no matter what they decided he'd never go along with legalizing it. Which is exactly what the commission decided, that hemp should be legalized. Instead Nixon started the War on Drugs, he used the term first in 1972. I don't know any that support employers testing DNA either.

The more extreme liberatarians are okay with the sale of human organs!

And what's wrong with that? If I have an organ I want someone else to have I should be able to give it to them, whether I donate it or I'm paid. Despite what people in the US think of Iran if a person there needs a new organ they are usually able to find an organ and don't have to wait on a waiting list for years.

There is no difference if the government is one of those several major employers, except the government is required to respect more rights of their employees than private employers are.

"B7. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?"
"First of all, stop creating them as our government does with military contractors and government-subsidized industries. Second, create a more fluid economic environment in which they'd break up. This happens naturally in a free market; even in ours, with taxes and regulatory policies that encourage gigantism, it's quite rare for a company to stay in the biggest 500 for longer than twenty years. We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions. We'd make it impossible for corporations to grow fat on "sweetheart deals" paid for with taxpayers' money; we'd lower the cost of capital (by cutting taxes) and regulatory compliance (by repealing regulations that presume guilt until you prove your innocence), encouraging entrepreneurship and letting economic conditions (rather than government favoritism) determine the optimum size of the business unit."

If I'm wrong, I'd love to learn why

You are wrong, which isn't surprising as both Democrats and Republican have been making Libertarians as lunatics on the fringe. I gave examples above in how you are wrong but if you really want to learn more read the Libertarian FAQ linked to above. The Libertarian Party's platform explains the party stances, and BTW I'm not registered Libertarian (that's why I call myself a small "l" "libertarian" not a big "L" "libertarian"), I am registered "No Party Affiliation" and vote for the person not the party. For any given office I look at where the candidates stand on the issues that concern me and I'll vote for the one that comes closest to me on those issues.

Falcon

Or you could all just give up the authoritarian crap and join the party of principle.

We oppose all of the above and don't come off looking like hypocrites.

Sadly, it appears a lot of other people do too, including many in government itself. Even if they don't question it, per se, they seem to ignore it.

Something like the shadegg bill seems like a good place to start.

It would be great if someone with money could fund something akin to the ACLU - but with a focus on defending the constitution by suing the government when it oversteps its bounds.

People like the Libertarians talk a good talk, but don't do much, and nobody listens.

The entire Republican party has arrayed themselves against the Constitution.

Bob Barr, former republican senator, opposes telecom immunity.

Remember that on election day.

He is now the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.

For now, I'm leaning towards voting for Bob Barr but if the only choices were McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama.

We've got 6 or 7 parties. We've got the:

Republican party:
http://www.gop.com/

Democratic party:
http://www.democrats.org/

Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/

Green party:
http://www.gp.org/index.php

Socialist party:
http://www.sp-usa.org/

Constitution party:
http://constitutionparty.com/

If you look at the platforms and positions of these parties you'll find a lot of diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, only the most popular positions of the first two parties listed will ever be likely to see the light of day. If only there were some way to change that...

Kidding aside, Obama does speak about reforming the whole intellectual property system... It's hard to quantify what exactly he means when he talks about reform

That scares the hell out of me. Any time a a politican talks about "intellectual pooperty reform" the copyright length is even longer and fair use rights are further eroded.

I've looked at the other two candidates

You mean Wayne Allyn Root and Cynthia McKinney? Don't you mean three? The Republicans are running some guy or another, too, you know

Obama talks about rewriting intellectual property, writes some dream bill, only to have it obliterated in Congress due equally to his lack of commitment and Congress's general distaste for effective legislation

He's been Senator for a while now, why hasn't he introduced this legislation? That is, after all, what Congress does. The President merely vetos it or signs it into law and runs the bureaucracy. Don't look to Obama or any other mainstream candidate to push for meaningful reform of anything, unless it benefits the corporations that pay for their election campaigns.

Well, maybe in their imaginations. But that "libertarian" was hustling for exactly that kind of rigged market. Which is the only kind of market I've ever seen any "actual" libertarian hustle for in reality.

I, and others, have posted a number of tymes about opening up the airwaves. I and other libertarians are against ALL government granted monopolies. As for other libertarians, read some of the posts in the Libertarian Party's forums on monopolies some tyme. Nobody who supports monopolies can be considered a libertarian. How about this:

"Abstract: We hereby clarify the radical libertarian stance about Microsoft and government, and more generally about monopolies. We explain how the original evil behind Microsoft's monopoly is government intervention in the form of intellectual property privileges, and how any solution should begin by abolishing these privileges."

Or "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights ".

It wasn't Bush Jr. It wasn't Clinton. It wasn't Bush Sr. [etc]

It's the steady decline of the United States of America over a very long period of time. Both political parties are to blame. "Conservatives" tend to fear-monger and use their power to extend the power of the law in the moral sector, giving increased power to "law enforcement" agencies, and yes, sometimes (often, even) under false or stupid pretenses. "Liberals" tend to increase government programs to further a socialist agenda, which also leads to further increasing the power held by the government, although they tend to loosen "moral" law to give people a heightened sense of "freedom", while regulating things that true freedom requires, like business, property ownership, etc.

My intention is not to come across as an attack on either side. I admit I have a more "conservative" bias personally, but over the last few years my eyes have opened and I now disagree with most moral-law regulation, at least on the federal side. Personally, I believe that the lower you get on the scale (state - county - city), the more room there can and should be for moral-enforcement laws. (I'm just making it clear what my personal POV is in the hopes of making clear any bias with which I wrote the previous paragraph.)

One possible fix.

In most places "liberal" is equivalent to what Americans call "libertarian," and the parties Americans call "liberal' are known as "labor" or "left".

Some people oppose Roe v. Wade only because it violated states rights. Paul opposes it for that reason and because he considers abortion to be "the greatest moral issue of our time".

As I said abortion is one of the issues I disagree with, for two reasons. One is I believe in choice and the second is I believe it should be national not state based. However I support him because I have more disagreements with other candidates than I do with him. I'll support him until I know who the Libertarian candidate is, then depending on that candidate's positions on the issues I may support him or her. I support and or vote for the person not the party. I've voted for Democrats, independents, Libertarians, Reform party candidates, and Republicans. Actually I support open primaries not closed ones, I want to be able to vote for the person I think is the best in each party.

I know a lot of Libertarians are all gung-ho about being pro-choice because, superficially, it sounds like less government intrusion.

True but other Libertarians are pro-life. This is one issue in the LP, Libertarian Party, where there's a split. For instance here's some discussions by both pro-choice and pro-life supporters. The LP website is filled with them.

Word games aside, this is an impossible proposition. Pro-choice means "abortions should be legal on demand".

It isn't an impossible proposition. Like I said I'm against abortion personally except to save the live of the woman or maybe rape, I'd never pay for one and don't want government to pay either, but I also believe I don't have the right to tell anyone else they can't have one. Instead I'd prefer to see the need, perceived or necessary, for abortions reduced. For instance I support increasing sex ed and condom use, not just "just say no".

The pro-choice stance requires stripping some human beings of the fundamental right to life.

That's a bias, some don't believe a fetus is a human being until it's viable on it's own. Before then it's a parasite.

The pro-life stance (which can include exceptions for rape/incest, life/serious health, etc.) rests upon the proposition that all human beings have an equal right to life.

Something I ask pro-lifers is if they would allow an abortion if the expectant mother's life is in jeopardy. Many though not all are against any exception, so I point out they in fact are not pro-life because they'd rather let the mother die, and possibly the fetus as well, than let her have an abortion. In the same vein I may also ask if they are anti or pro capital punishment. And usually they are pro capital punishment. I call these people hypocrites.

The stances of the pro-choice and pro-life sides with respect to human rights are mutually exclusive. "I wouldn't get an abortion, but I can't legislate it", or "I think it's morally wrong but I can't impose my morality on you" are not pro-life positions. They are pro-choice and pro-choice only because they rule out the right to life of certain kinds of human beings. That is not pro-life. Merely finding abortion morally problematic or icky is insufficient for being pro-life.

So says you, others say differently.

Some people oppose Roe v. Wade only because it violated states rights. Paul opposes it for that reason and because he considers abortion to be "the greatest moral issue of our time".

As I said abortion is one of the issues I disagree with, for two reasons. One is I believe in choice and the second is I believe it should be national not state based. However I support him because I have more disagreements with other candidates than I do with him. I'll support him until I know who the Libertarian candidate is, then depending on that candidate's positions on the issues I may support him or her. I support and or vote for the person not the party. I've voted for Democrats, independents, Libertarians, Reform party candidates, and Republicans. Actually I support open primaries not closed ones, I want to be able to vote for the person I think is the best in each party.

I know a lot of Libertarians are all gung-ho about being pro-choice because, superficially, it sounds like less government intrusion.

True but other Libertarians are pro-life. This is one issue in the LP, Libertarian Party, where there's a split. For instance here's some discussions by both pro-choice and pro-life supporters. The LP website is filled with them.

Word games aside, this is an impossible proposition. Pro-choice means "abortions should be legal on demand".

It isn't an impossible proposition. Like I said I'm against abortion personally except to save the live of the woman or maybe rape, I'd never pay for one and don't want government to pay either, but I also believe I don't have the right to tell anyone else they can't have one. Instead I'd prefer to see the need, perceived or necessary, for abortions reduced. For instance I support increasing sex ed and condom use, not just "just say no".

The pro-choice stance requires stripping some human beings of the fundamental right to life.

That's a bias, some don't believe a fetus is a human being until it's viable on it's own. Before then it's a parasite.

The pro-life stance (which can include exceptions for rape/incest, life/serious health, etc.) rests upon the proposition that all human beings have an equal right to life.

Something I ask pro-lifers is if they would allow an abortion if the expectant mother's life is in jeopardy. Many though not all are against any exception, so I point out they in fact are not pro-life because they'd rather let the mother die, and possibly the fetus as well, than let her have an abortion. In the same vein I may also ask if they are anti or pro capital punishment. And usually they are pro capital punishment. I call these people hypocrites.

The stances of the pro-choice and pro-life sides with respect to human rights are mutually exclusive. "I wouldn't get an abortion, but I can't legislate it", or "I think it's morally wrong but I can't impose my morality on you" are not pro-life positions. They are pro-choice and pro-choice only because they rule out the right to life of certain kinds of human beings. That is not pro-life. Merely finding abortion morally problematic or icky is insufficient for being pro-life.

So says you, others say differently.

Paul's appeal - which is minimal if votes are the metric

While Ron Paul does't get as many votes as others, I wonder what effect the media has on it, I bet those who get more media coverage also get more votes, even before the first vote was cast in a primary.

primarily among libertarians, most of whom choose to overlook his von Mises

Perhaps you didn't know it but some Libertarians love Von Mises' economics while others don't. Some like Murray N. Rothbard and others Milton Friedman.

Yeah, I'm a libertarian, but Ron Paul makes me shudder. It was an interesting exercise to go through the US Libertarian Party platform and compare with all Ron Paul's positions that I think are way wrong. On every single one (abortion, free trade, anti-immigrant xenophobia), his positions are the opposite of the party's planks.

1) end the nanny state. no welfare, no social security, no mecidare/caid, no federal health insurance, etc. if people can't take care of themselves, so be it.
2) the current war is completely unprofitable. the juice just ain't worth the squeeze. we've better things to spend our money on.
3) the DHS is the worst thing to happen to personal liberty in a while. they're out.
4) get out of the UN. they do nothing but hold us back.
5) repeal any legislation counter to the bill of rights in particular and personal liberty in general.

for more info, check out The Libertarian Party

Too bad every self-professed Libertarian I've ever met has been of the "I don't want to pay taxes" variety rather than the "the gov't doesn't really need to regulate that" sort.

The platform of the Libertarian Party says it wants to deregulate. IRL I don't know many Libertarians, or libertarians, but those I do or did know wanted not just deregulation but small government period.

If you're a mix of liberal and conservative, then maybe left-right politics isn't the most important issue. For people like you, ask how much government you want. If you want to take control of your life back from the bureaucrats in Washington, check out the Libertarians.

If you actually did your homework you'd recognize the fundamental difference between libertarian and neocon policy on pollution: libertarian policy gives you the right to fight back against polluters, through strong property rights and the ability to protect your property. See this article if you are interested in educating yourself. Neocon policy, on the other hand, would simply make you sit there and take it -- just as you have been by law for some time, under the policies of both the republicans and the democrats.

Where did I say "Democrats, as opposed to our lovely Bushite true conservatives"? Before implying I have some mental disorder, perhaps you might want to consider that both of the major parties in the US are pretty much big government types. I said "leftists", which, by Bush's actions of growing the government to crack down on personal freedoms and take away the freedom of movement, freedom to do business without being tracked, and a whole bunch more pretty much includes him and his ilk.

Government can only be trusted when it fears the people. That's not going to happen under the control of any group as statist and centralist as the Democrats or Republicans. Many of the supposed differences between them are talking points to get votes. The rest are not so much a difference of opinion on government growth but at the rate it should happen.

If you want smaller government and more personal freedoms, vote Libertarian (or Freedom Party (International), Jeffersonian Party, American Reform Party, or the Populist Party of America). If the complaint is that no one is running, then promote a candidate or run yourself.

Beware, though, of many "small government, freedom to the people" parties who have planks in their platforms specifically calling for curtailing of freedoms of those with whom they disagree, like the Prohibition Party, American Heritage Party, or the America First Party. Freedom for your friends and not your opponents is not really freedom at all.

A strong military under civilian control, the right to retaliate to attack, open trade with other countries not subsidized or tariffed in either direction, regulation of interstate trade, equitable strategic arms reduction and extradition treaties, and the right to contain or forcibly extract people like bin Laden when extradition won't work are pretty much all the federal government should be concerned about. Everything else is guaranteed by the Constitution to be delegated to the states or the people, after all.

I'll stop calling the Republican party leftists along with the Democrats when they stop doing the same things the Democrats do.

There is also no party supporting dmca reform, or dedicating a small fraction of military spending toward the many viable options for clean sustainable energy, or even possibly reqiurements for ecological responsibility

The Libertarian party, LP, wants to reduce military spending. As does the Green Party. The LP also calls the DMCA unconstitutional. The Green Party is all about sustainable energy and the environment.

See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".

I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:

• I.8 Reproductive Rights
• I.9 Sexuality and Gender
• IV.1 Immigration
• III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime

I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Constitutional Amendment - States that a person born to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any state solely by reason of U.S. birth.

Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.

H.R.193: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.

Make College Affordable Act of 2007 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers, their spouses, dependents, and grandchildren a tax deduction from gross income for certain higher education expenses and for interest on certain student loans. Includes as higher education expenses undergraduate tuition and fees and reasonable living expenses while attending an institution of higher education.

H.R.1056: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjusted for inflation after 2007) per student per year for the cost of attendance at any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized to provide elementary or secondary education, or both.

H.R.1057: To amend th

See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".

I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:

• I.8 Reproductive Rights
• I.9 Sexuality and Gender
• IV.1 Immigration
• III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime

I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Constitutional Amendment - States that a person born to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any state solely by reason of U.S. birth.

Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.

H.R.193: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.

Make College Affordable Act of 2007 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers, their spouses, dependents, and grandchildren a tax deduction from gross income for certain higher education expenses and for interest on certain student loans. Includes as higher education expenses undergraduate tuition and fees and reasonable living expenses while attending an institution of higher education.

H.R.1056: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjusted for inflation after 2007) per student per year for the cost of attendance at any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized to provide elementary or secondary education, or both.

H.R.1057: To amend th

See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".

I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:

• I.8 Reproductive Rights
• I.9 Sexuality and Gender
• IV.1 Immigration
• III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime

I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Constitutional Amendment - States that a person born to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any state solely by reason of U.S. birth.

Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.

H.R.193: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.

Make College Affordable Act of 2007 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers, their spouses, dependents, and grandchildren a tax deduction from gross income for certain higher education expenses and for interest on certain student loans. Includes as higher education expenses undergraduate tuition and fees and reasonable living expenses while attending an institution of higher education.

H.R.1056: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjusted for inflation after 2007) per student per year for the cost of attendance at any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized to provide elementary or secondary education, or both.

H.R.1057: To amend th

See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".

I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:

• I.8 Reproductive Rights
• I.9 Sexuality and Gender
• IV.1 Immigration
• III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime

I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Constitutional Amendment - States that a person born to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any state solely by reason of U.S. birth.

Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.

H.R.193: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.

Make College Affordable Act of 2007 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers, their spouses, dependents, and grandchildren a tax deduction from gross income for certain higher education expenses and for interest on certain student loans. Includes as higher education expenses undergraduate tuition and fees and reasonable living expenses while attending an institution of higher education.

H.R.1056: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjusted for inflation after 2007) per student per year for the cost of attendance at any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized to provide elementary or secondary education, or both.

H.R.1057: To amend th

This is a classic expamle showing that politicians and beaucrats are morons. How can you trust them to do anything right? Vote Libertarian! http://www.libertarian.ca/ and http://www.lp.org/

Libertarian Party: "In 1988, Paul left the Republican Party and ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. He appeared on the ballot in 46 states and received 432,000 votes. Paul remains a life member of the party and frequently speaks at its national conventions."

Remember a libertarian would not harp on Microsoft, would not have guns laws restricting the use of bazookas, and would not restrict people from following creationism. Libertarian means to live and let live, and most importantly it means for people to be idiots!

Yes, and every Republican is anti-abortion. Every Democrat is pro-choice.

Well, not exactly.

Suppose you agree with every part of the Libertarian party platform except for one part? You are suggesting that person is not a libertarian? What, exactly, are they?

  (for the purpose of this argument we are going to ignore the differences between "libertarianism" and "the Libertarian Party", since your argument does not really cover the differences)

One only needs glance at the differing platforms of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton to realize there are always differences of opinions in a political party.

I consider myself a libertarian. I have minor issues with the capital-L Libertarian Party, but not enough that I do not support them fully. I do believe in some gun-control, however. I believe it is best done (and correctly done) through a Constitutional amendment.

As far as Microsoft goes - I feel one of the responsibilities of the federal government is to prevent monopolies from abusing the market. The government should stay out of capitalism until there is a failure of capitalism (i.e. a monopoly). As a good libertarian, I feel that the government SHOULD investigate Microsoft, and take actions to prevent them from using their monopoly to unfairly control the market.

I also have never seen any Libertarian saying that people should be prevented from following Creationism, but that it should not be taught in schools as "science". A libertarian is going to see that the Constitution provides for a separation of Church and State, and therefore a government entity (public schools) should not be teaching faith in a specific Christian ideology. Followers of Creationism are free to continue to believe what they want, are free to gather outside of schools.

Oh, and the quiz you link to? Here is one of the questions:
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

This is a horribly worded question. Apple's stock dipped a bit due to Greenpeace's (poorly done) criticism of Apple's environmental policy. I would say that this is an economic factor that a corporation should pay attention to. The company also needs to pay attention to the fact that more consumers are buying based on environmentally friendlier products. This drives profits. But the question is worded such that this should be ignored.

As others have mentioned in response, the questions are sometimes poorly worded, and there is not a "Do not care" answer, which seems almost critical to a Libertarian at times. What do I care about nationalistic movements, for example?

Another question: The rich are too highly taxed.
This question gives no perspective or comparison. Too highly taxed compared to poor people? Compared to middle-income? Or just in general do I think that the rich should not be taxed at all?

Yes, I know what capitalism is; it seems that you have some illusions about it, though. If, as you say, "there is not capitalism if there's government interference" then I guess there really is no capitalism in the world at all, at least since the early 20th century.

I'm under no illusion capitalism exists in the US, or anywhere else. What we have is the corporate aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of. The US hasn't had a freemarket capitalism since Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the US in the 1830s inspiring him to write the book "Democracy in America" . This may be why Thomas Jefferson said there should be a revolution every 20 years or so and wrote about the "blood of tyrants and patriots". TJ knew big and powerful corporations like banks would gain control if government were to grow, corporations would use the power of government to keep their wealth if not grow wealthier and hinder competition. Well government has grown large, and in the US both Democrats and Republicans want to keep it that way. Therefore I support the Libertarian Party which stands up for small government and liberty.

the United States is a country with a capitalist economy. There are minimum wage laws, workers' comp laws, anti-discrimination laws, safety regulations, ag. subsidies, state concessions, sales taxes, property taxes, health regulations, and, well, the list goes on.

These examples of your's of government laws and regulations show just why the US is not capitalist. Of those you list above the only ones I support are property and sales taxes. I strongly believe the federal government should go back to the limits the USA Constitution puts on government. With a constitutionally limited government income tax could be abolished. What little funding government would need could be raised from consumption or sales tax, import duties, and usage fees; along with property tax at the state and local levels. One I am definitely opposed to are the massive farms subsidies. If you go back over other posts I've made you'll see I rail against farm subsidies frequently.

You seem to be saying that just because someone can't employ labor at $1.50/hr. to make lead-based marijuana cookies that they sell as infant food, or just because I can't turn my backyard into a nuclear waste disposal site even though it is my backyard, that somehow there isn't capitalism in the USA.

I'm saying no such thing, could you please point out exactly where I said such things? Or did you just pull that out of your ass?

If I meant "I am a Democrat," then I would have said that. Being a liberal != being a Democrat, as much as the media would like you to believe it. Think of it this way -- all Democrats are liberals, but not all liberals are Democrats. Follow?

Liberalism, by itself, has nothing to do with taxing and spending. Adam Smith was a classical liberal.

If you really think liberalism is about taxing and spending, then you need to drag yourself away from Fox News, and read those wiki's I linked you to.

On bipartisanism: it's true that third party candidates are unlikely to win an election in our political climate. But consider this: politicians, as you suggest, are businessmen. They want to win elections over all else -- we'll come back to that in a moment.

Do you remember all of the "a vote for Perot is a vote for Bush" rhetoric during the 2000 election? Well, that may be true -- in the short term. Votes for the Green party are votes that could have been spent on the Democratic party. But if the Democrats notice that they're consistently losing elections because voters are rallying themselves with fringe groups, dividing their numbers, then they'll respond like businessmen: by tweaking their platform to make themselves appealing to the greatest number of voters possible, including those fringe groups. After all, if they don't, they'll keep losing, and businessmen want to win, right?

I don't agree with the entire Democratic platform or the entire Republican platform -- I'd side more with the Democrats on social issues, and more with the Republicans on economic issues. Instead of just rolling over and saying "it's hopeless," I'm taking a stand by voting third party -- even if there isn't short-term change as a result, I'm trying to work on long-term changes by showing other voters that you don't have to vote bipartisan, and showing the two major parties that they haven't earned my vote yet.

You say you're a libertarian, but seriously, *what the hell is that* but some irrelevant intellectualism.

Maybe you're not aware that there actually is a Libertarian party.

maybe the country will only vote for the 2 party crap, but it doesnt mean you have to.

if you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, youre still voting for evil.

take a look at the libertarian party. take a GOOD look. some of the ideas might seem weird or crazy until you think and realize how much sense they make.

http://www.lp.org/

thank you.

I think what GP is asking, and what I'm wondering as well, is how we'll prevent corporations from putting poisons into the air and water or abusing their workers if the only enforcement is after-the-fact in a courtroom?

This brings up one thing I disagree with at least some other libertarians, I support a strong EPA enforcing environmental laws and regulations. As far as the environment goes I support the precautionary principle.

The only way I can see this working is if corporate personhood was revoked, which I don't see on any of the Libertarian Party's platforms.

From the Libertarian Party website:

"Tightening up the charters, along with elimination of corporate personhood and elimination of limited liability would enable a self regulating structure that would ensure that contractual obligations are met."
"If I am ever in a position to do something about it, I will call for a removal of corporate personhood, becuase I believe that is the basis for these types of problems and the never ending battle of control between government and private enterprise."
"As for corporations and unions. Corporations should be stripped of their ficticious personhood and accordingly stripped of the ability to make political contributions."

Searching the LP website I found 15 pages about this, so there are a number of Libertarians who don't believe corporations shoud be given personhood status.

I think what GP is asking, and what I'm wondering as well, is how we'll prevent corporations from putting poisons into the air and water or abusing their workers if the only enforcement is after-the-fact in a courtroom?

This brings up one thing I disagree with at least some other libertarians, I support a strong EPA enforcing environmental laws and regulations. As far as the environment goes I support the precautionary principle.

The only way I can see this working is if corporate personhood was revoked, which I don't see on any of the Libertarian Party's platforms.

From the Libertarian Party website:

"Tightening up the charters, along with elimination of corporate personhood and elimination of limited liability would enable a self regulating structure that would ensure that contractual obligations are met."
"If I am ever in a position to do something about it, I will call for a removal of corporate personhood, becuase I believe that is the basis for these types of problems and the never ending battle of control between government and private enterprise."
"As for corporations and unions. Corporations should be stripped of their ficticious personhood and accordingly stripped of the ability to make political contributions."

Searching the LP website I found 15 pages about this, so there are a number of Libertarians who don't believe corporations shoud be given personhood status.

I think what GP is asking, and what I'm wondering as well, is how we'll prevent corporations from putting poisons into the air and water or abusing their workers if the only enforcement is after-the-fact in a courtroom?

This brings up one thing I disagree with at least some other libertarians, I support a strong EPA enforcing environmental laws and regulations. As far as the environment goes I support the precautionary principle.

The only way I can see this working is if corporate personhood was revoked, which I don't see on any of the Libertarian Party's platforms.

From the Libertarian Party website:

"Tightening up the charters, along with elimination of corporate personhood and elimination of limited liability would enable a self regulating structure that would ensure that contractual obligations are met."
"If I am ever in a position to do something about it, I will call for a removal of corporate personhood, becuase I believe that is the basis for these types of problems and the never ending battle of control between government and private enterprise."
"As for corporations and unions. Corporations should be stripped of their ficticious personhood and accordingly stripped of the ability to make political contributions."

Searching the LP website I found 15 pages about this, so there are a number of Libertarians who don't believe corporations shoud be given personhood status.

I think what GP is asking, and what I'm wondering as well, is how we'll prevent corporations from putting poisons into the air and water or abusing their workers if the only enforcement is after-the-fact in a courtroom?

This brings up one thing I disagree with at least some other libertarians, I support a strong EPA enforcing environmental laws and regulations. As far as the environment goes I support the precautionary principle.

The only way I can see this working is if corporate personhood was revoked, which I don't see on any of the Libertarian Party's platforms.

From the Libertarian Party website:

"Tightening up the charters, along with elimination of corporate personhood and elimination of limited liability would enable a self regulating structure that would ensure that contractual obligations are met."
"If I am ever in a position to do something about it, I will call for a removal of corporate personhood, becuase I believe that is the basis for these types of problems and the never ending battle of control between government and private enterprise."
"As for corporations and unions. Corporations should be stripped of their ficticious personhood and accordingly stripped of the ability to make political contributions."

Searching the LP website I found 15 pages about this, so there are a number of Libertarians who don't believe corporations shoud be given personhood status.

I'd love to be a libertarian, but it seems I'd have to believe that the free market works, and corporations are free to do business however they wish.

In a freemarket corporations would not have the power they currently enjoy. For instance under a freemaket the RI/MPAA wouldn't exist, or at least wouldn't be able to go after grannies or teens because copyrights and patents would not exist.

I wouldn't mind, assuming we returned corporations to a public charter system, in which a corporation may have its charter revoked if it is found to behave illegally.

Yeap, it used to be a corporation could have it's charter cancelled if it didn't live up to it's obligation to improve the commn or public good. Thomas Jefferson railed and warned of corporations and power, Thomas Jefferson: Against Corporate Power.

...Kenneth Lay ...

If the libertarians can promise me that, I'm a convert. 'Cause except for the whole trust-in-the-free-market thing, I'm mostly there.

It was both Democrats and Republicans that allowed Enron to happen, not Libertarians

"I think people should know that the Libertarian party...

1. Is going to protect religious freedom.
2. Work at freeing you from being a slave to taxes for almost half the year.
3. Remove government corruption by removing the monetary incentive.
4. Keep government out of your personnel life. You can now shower alone without Sam.
5. Protect our country from invaders and disaster, by not scattering our young able bodied citizens all over the earth.
6. Listen to this countries citizens rather than it's Enrons.
7. Embrace our country's roots as a country of freedom and liberty."

Here's one. The problem is, they've been around for decades, and have yet to make any inroads into government. We know whose fault that is... as George Bernard Shaw said, "Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."