Slashdot Mirror

The problem with the Libertarian party is that they are a complete bunch of certified nuts. There's a reason they are a fringe party - almost all of their positions are totally unreasonable. They are the political equivalent Islamic extremists.

Here's an example of a Libertarian position on education, under the larger heading of poverty: "Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped -- forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate. It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty. "

Here they are decrying the very private education system they want to create! And you think schools are underfunded now? Just wait until nobody HAS TO pay for them.

I'm even saying this as somebody who's moderately libertarian and has voted for Libertarian candidates in the past. If you could take what mainstream Republicans claim to stand for on economic issues and what mainstream Democrats claim to stand for on social issues, that's about where by politics fall. But the Libertarian party overshoots that by miles.

Green Party: "Greens are pushing for instant run-off voting, proportional representation, and other ways to give minorities of all kinds a greater say in government" [1]

Libertarian Party: ""The problem is that we are a minority party in a winner-take-all voting system," said Mr. Redpath, urging party activists to support "electoral reform" aimed at creating a system of proportional representation." - LNC Chairman William Redpath [2]

Socialist Party: "We continue our involvement with the Alameda County Peace and Freedom Party and FairVote/CFER (Californians For electoral Reform)" [3] (PDF)

You're assuming many Nader voters would have voted for Gore if their only option was Gore or Bush, or that Gore is much better for these voters than Bush. Given the choice between only a D or a R, they'd rather spoil their ballots than vote for either. It's like a choice between Stalin and Pol Pot. One may be worse than the other, but both have crossed the line so far that some are not prepared to support them.

It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

in places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener.

This is one place where courts and lawsuits come in. China has been more interested in boosting economic output than in health and safety or the environment, however they are realizing this attitude causes more harm than good, so they are slowly tightening up on their laws and enforcement of them. As this continues their record on the environment, health, and safety will improve.

Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments.

Again lawsuits, and more, strong unions with the attendant collective bargaining, can help this. With libertarians' belief in the right to assembly they should be able to strengthen unions.

. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.

Once again, federal agencies et alia are not needed for this, simply all it take are laws and law enforcement.

Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite.

If you really believe Libertarians in power would lead to this then your beliefs in what Libertarians are is totally twisted. Libertarians are very mucb FOR Liberty, for all not just a few, and for small government. It is government that creates the few who have power! Here is a webpage from the Libertarian Party for the FAQs on what Libertarians are. This page is an introduction, and here's the party platform. And since you're so concerned about corporations here's the Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies section.

Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites?

Not at all. I am libertarian because I believe in Liberty! And that governments are the real terrorists!

think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else?

I am very much pro equal opportunity! Opportunity not outcome!

in places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener.

This is one place where courts and lawsuits come in. China has been more interested in boosting economic output than in health and safety or the environment, however they are realizing this attitude causes more harm than good, so they are slowly tightening up on their laws and enforcement of them. As this continues their record on the environment, health, and safety will improve.

Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments.

Again lawsuits, and more, strong unions with the attendant collective bargaining, can help this. With libertarians' belief in the right to assembly they should be able to strengthen unions.

. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.

Once again, federal agencies et alia are not needed for this, simply all it take are laws and law enforcement.

Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite.

If you really believe Libertarians in power would lead to this then your beliefs in what Libertarians are is totally twisted. Libertarians are very mucb FOR Liberty, for all not just a few, and for small government. It is government that creates the few who have power! Here is a webpage from the Libertarian Party for the FAQs on what Libertarians are. This page is an introduction, and here's the party platform. And since you're so concerned about corporations here's the Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies section.

Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites?

Not at all. I am libertarian because I believe in Liberty! And that governments are the real terrorists!

think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else?

I am very much pro equal opportunity! Opportunity not outcome!

in places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener.

This is one place where courts and lawsuits come in. China has been more interested in boosting economic output than in health and safety or the environment, however they are realizing this attitude causes more harm than good, so they are slowly tightening up on their laws and enforcement of them. As this continues their record on the environment, health, and safety will improve.

Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments.

Again lawsuits, and more, strong unions with the attendant collective bargaining, can help this. With libertarians' belief in the right to assembly they should be able to strengthen unions.

. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.

Once again, federal agencies et alia are not needed for this, simply all it take are laws and law enforcement.

Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite.

If you really believe Libertarians in power would lead to this then your beliefs in what Libertarians are is totally twisted. Libertarians are very mucb FOR Liberty, for all not just a few, and for small government. It is government that creates the few who have power! Here is a webpage from the Libertarian Party for the FAQs on what Libertarians are. This page is an introduction, and here's the party platform. And since you're so concerned about corporations here's the Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies section.

Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites?

Not at all. I am libertarian because I believe in Liberty! And that governments are the real terrorists!

think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else?

I am very much pro equal opportunity! Opportunity not outcome!

in places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener.

This is one place where courts and lawsuits come in. China has been more interested in boosting economic output than in health and safety or the environment, however they are realizing this attitude causes more harm than good, so they are slowly tightening up on their laws and enforcement of them. As this continues their record on the environment, health, and safety will improve.

Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments.

Again lawsuits, and more, strong unions with the attendant collective bargaining, can help this. With libertarians' belief in the right to assembly they should be able to strengthen unions.

. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.

Once again, federal agencies et alia are not needed for this, simply all it take are laws and law enforcement.

Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite.

If you really believe Libertarians in power would lead to this then your beliefs in what Libertarians are is totally twisted. Libertarians are very mucb FOR Liberty, for all not just a few, and for small government. It is government that creates the few who have power! Here is a webpage from the Libertarian Party for the FAQs on what Libertarians are. This page is an introduction, and here's the party platform. And since you're so concerned about corporations here's the Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies section.

Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites?

Not at all. I am libertarian because I believe in Liberty! And that governments are the real terrorists!

think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else?

I am very much pro equal opportunity! Opportunity not outcome!

in places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener.

This is one place where courts and lawsuits come in. China has been more interested in boosting economic output than in health and safety or the environment, however they are realizing this attitude causes more harm than good, so they are slowly tightening up on their laws and enforcement of them. As this continues their record on the environment, health, and safety will improve.

Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments.

Again lawsuits, and more, strong unions with the attendant collective bargaining, can help this. With libertarians' belief in the right to assembly they should be able to strengthen unions.

. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.

Once again, federal agencies et alia are not needed for this, simply all it take are laws and law enforcement.

Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite.

If you really believe Libertarians in power would lead to this then your beliefs in what Libertarians are is totally twisted. Libertarians are very mucb FOR Liberty, for all not just a few, and for small government. It is government that creates the few who have power! Here is a webpage from the Libertarian Party for the FAQs on what Libertarians are. This page is an introduction, and here's the party platform. And since you're so concerned about corporations here's the Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies section.

Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites?

Not at all. I am libertarian because I believe in Liberty! And that governments are the real terrorists!

think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else?

I am very much pro equal opportunity! Opportunity not outcome!

Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.

Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party, you should review the Libertarian Platform.

Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.

Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party, you should review the Libertarian Platform.

You sir are at least a libertarian.

Have you thought about becoming a Libertarian? http://lp.org/

People don't seem to have a clue about how the "United" "States" thing was supposed to work. Federal laws that "over rule" states were NEVER supposed to happen.

http://ca.lp.org/printer_lp20070410.shtml

*SIGH* the USA experiment was a great success. Now it is over, sadly. Move along. Nothing new to see here any more.

Who gives a rip about how great he is with babies. "Pro-family values" is religious-right code for discrimination agains gay people, public funding of religion, and so forth. Compare to the libertarian take: http://www.lp.org/media/article_464.shtml. Ron Paul can go get bent.

Speaking as a lifelong Republican, Ron Paul is the first candidate I've seen in some time that I feel enthused about. Not for what he'll DO, but for what he WON'T do.

I was almost the opposite, prior to Ron Paul I voted mostly Democrat starting with voting for Carter in 1980. But then because of Ron Paul I learned of the Libertarian Party. That year, '88, I was deputized to register people to vote. As part of the process I was given a list of offically recognized political parties, there were more than 50. While information wasn't readily available I learned what I could of the LP and Ron Paul and liked what I found out. Since then I've voted for the person for each office according to where they stood on the issues that were important to me whether they were Democrat, independent, Reform, or Republican. And I've voted for candidates from each of these parties.

We need more "WON'T do" in our gov't.

Yea, more gridlock would help.

You have one, and it's not much popular, is it? Libertarians haven't done well elsewhere either, so they're not a viable alternative. On the other hand, social democracy is a popular model in many democratic states, and proven to be quite successful as well. Between it and conservative liberalism, the resulting balance is generally quite healthy for the state.

I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore

http://www.lp.org/

Each state has 2% of the Senate vote.

Montana seems to have 2 Democrat senators... maybe they should start a groundswell by voting in some libertarians who wouldn't put up for that stuff.

I don't know what ACMENEWSLLC means so I can't say whether I am or am not.

But I am curious. Were you a registered Republican in 2004? Did you vote in the primaries? For whom?

Since the first tyme I registered to vote I've registered as independent or no party affiliation. I prefer to do my own thinking and not what some party wants. I've voted for candidates from 5 different parties, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, Reform, and Republican. And as I've only been registered in two states and both require party affiliation to vote in primaries I've never voted in them. However if come next year Ron Paul is in the Republican primary I will change my affliation to Republican just to vote for him, of course afterwards I'll change it back to no party affiliation. I've already voted for him once, in 1988 he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate and voted for him then. Actually it during that election that I heard of and learned about the LP, and been a supporter since.

Did you support Badnarik's lawsuit challenging the Ohio results?

I don't ever recall hearing about a lawsuit Badnarik filed. I would support such a lawsuit though, especially after Deibold's CEO pledged to deliver Ohio's vote to Bush after the state bought Deibold voting machines.

I was a registered Libertarian when I lived in Arizona, but thanks to Oklahoma's most restrictive ballot access requirements in the nation I can't be registered as a Libertarian and there was one (count 'em. One) Independent candidate on my November 2006 ballot. Uggh.
So, I try to do both. I support the Libertarian Party and Downsize DC.
In many ways, Downsize DC has the potential to be more influential than the Libertarian Party in the near future. Downsize DC attempts to focus on "transpartisan" issues. We want to draw members from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. Virtually everyone agrees that the federal government is too big and too intrusive. Most people can agree that federal programs like REAL ID need to be repealed. It is an issue that crosses party lines. Downsize DC's flagship legislation is the "Read The Bills Act" is designed to remove the lack of accountability that our legislators abuse by passing volumes and volumes of laws that we are expected to know and follow but they don't even bother to read.
I think the Libertarians are a great group and would be a good match for many /. readers. I think Downsize DC is too.
Peter

The Libertarian Party has never advocated for privatization of police. Read the official platform here.

I disagree with the terms informed and willing; it was put in place by representatives who often never represented, in a system which is deliberately deceptive about how much money it takes in.

And as for democracy, what if that "willing electorate" made an "informed decision" that society would be better without Jews? Or without black people? I'm not saying democracy isn't capable of making good decisions, but you shouldn't automatically label it as "good" any more than you should label avoiding taxes as "evil".

And yes, I do have a better idea.

How the hell can this be marked informative and how the hell can you even try to *associate* yourself with the Libertarian party.

http://www.lp.org/

You are so Libertarian by caving into an empowered central federal government that you really just need to go grovel at the feet of W and polish his shoes with your tongue.

Parents, be parents.
Crybabies, change the channel.
Fantasy entertainment != reality (In the old words of 7up, never has and never will.)

Let freedom ring, not stagnate and die under a mere excuse for laziness. I am a true Libertarian and just like any other destuctions of freedoms and meddling, I find this appalling completely. Damn we sure could use Thomas Jefferson again.

I think what you are looking for is the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/

I voted for Ron Paul for president the first tyme he was a candidate, back in 1988, though he ran as a Libertarian. It's because he ran that I learned of the Libertarian Party. Though I'm registered independent now if I have to I'll change my party affiliation to Republican just so I can vote for him in the primary.

Go look up how many people voted for the PATRIOT act

Ron Paul was one of two members of the House of Reps that voted against the PATRIOT Act. Or was the other person a Senator? I recall when congress was supposedly "debating" the act Ralph Nader issued a challenge to congress. He offered to pay $10,000 to any charity the member of congress chose if they would take a test on what is in the act and pass it. Not one member took the test.

Please point me to the candidate who says we don't need to protect children from violent video games.

I think the real problem is the lack of civic duty in the vast majority of the population, and the fact that we have a very lazy media. Just making poltics more local wont make much of a difference, imo.

I might of agreed with this but a lot of politics is local, ie people have more control over local politics than they do over state, regional, or national politics. This has been a problem with the LP, Libertarian Party. If the LP were to concentrate on getting a lot of candidates elected locally, they could then have more success at running national candidates.

I think the Libertarian Party would disagree with you.

http://www.lp.org/

I don't know where this comes from, I have never heard a Libertarian say all roads should privatized. Can you provide a link, or is this smoke?

Right from the Party Platform [lp.org]:
...

Ah, neither on the snippet you provided nor on the actual page of the link you provided appears either "highway" or "road". I went ahead and searched the LP website using "road" and "privitize" and all I found was a post in a forum wherein a poster writes:

But, many of our critics like to accuse us of not living in the real world. They say, "You crazy Libertarians! You guys probably want to privatize the roads!"

Indeed, we do. Or at least I do. Privatizing the roads is one very important and under-appreciated step we can take toward liberty.

That's one person's belief, one I disagree with, but it is not the party platform. On another page another writer says: privatizing the roads along with other things is only going to make Libertarians look like loons.

I don't know where this comes from, I have never heard a Libertarian say all roads should privatized. Can you provide a link, or is this smoke?

Right from the Party Platform [lp.org]:
...

Ah, neither on the snippet you provided nor on the actual page of the link you provided appears either "highway" or "road". I went ahead and searched the LP website using "road" and "privitize" and all I found was a post in a forum wherein a poster writes:

But, many of our critics like to accuse us of not living in the real world. They say, "You crazy Libertarians! You guys probably want to privatize the roads!"

Indeed, we do. Or at least I do. Privatizing the roads is one very important and under-appreciated step we can take toward liberty.

That's one person's belief, one I disagree with, but it is not the party platform. On another page another writer says: privatizing the roads along with other things is only going to make Libertarians look like loons.

I don't know where this comes from, I have never heard a Libertarian say all roads should privatized. Can you provide a link, or is this smoke?

Right from the Party Platform [lp.org]:
...

Ah, neither on the snippet you provided nor on the actual page of the link you provided appears either "highway" or "road". I went ahead and searched the LP website using "road" and "privitize" and all I found was a post in a forum wherein a poster writes:

But, many of our critics like to accuse us of not living in the real world. They say, "You crazy Libertarians! You guys probably want to privatize the roads!"

Indeed, we do. Or at least I do. Privatizing the roads is one very important and under-appreciated step we can take toward liberty.

That's one person's belief, one I disagree with, but it is not the party platform. On another page another writer says: privatizing the roads along with other things is only going to make Libertarians look like loons.

I don't know where this comes from, I have never heard a Libertarian say all roads should privatized. Can you provide a link, or is this smoke?

Right from the Party Platform:

All public lands and resources, as well as claims thereto, except as explicitly allowed by the Constitution, shall be returned to private ownership, with the proceeds of sale going to retire public liabilities. Resource rights shall be defined as property rights, including riparian rights. All publicly owned infrastructures including dams and parks shall be returned to private ownership and all taxing authority for such public improvements shall sunset. Property related services shall be supplied by private markets and paid for by user fees, and regulation of property shall be limited to that which secures the rights of individuals.

Ah, you have to love those crazy Libertarians. :) There's all sorts of great nuggets in the platform. I also like the fact that this also says your neighborhood park will be turned into condos. I have a theory that only about 5% of people who style themselves Libertarian actually know what the party believes.

You are very right as to seeing that these self-proclaimed "libertarians" tend not to know of what the subcribe to. While some are 'real' libertarians, that designation is often been miss used by ashamed Republicans. If you need proof just take spin on any crowded highway, keep an eye out for "W" campaign stickers, I'll bet even money that you won't see one. I live in the northeast, and up until about a year ago, one could still see stickers for "W" often on the road, some even from the 2000 campaign, but not any longer. I started seeing this about 6 months ago, only because I have alway looked out for 'those idiots who voted for that bastard'.

There is a deserved, deep distrust with the Republican party these days, and many of them are trying to find a new political stand to lean on. The simple definition of Libertarianism as "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is very appealing to intelligent men who fear a burdening deficit may erode our economic health, and talk of 'Christian Values' from leadership which believe that the poor should be forgotten. Years of training by the Water boy and others of his ilk, have colored their arguments 'Red', but I suspect that as they, for the first time in their lives, start considering 'not being a Republican', will take a hard look at the issues and find more carefully considered arguments, than the hyperbole they have accepted as fact for so long. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we may be seeing some big changes of the political landscape. Admittedly, it's a small chance, but I believe that in 2008 we will start seeing Libertarian candidates 'do well' and perhaps even win in some red states (maybe even taking some of the new blue house seats too).

You are very right as to seeing that these self-proclaimed "libertarians" tend not to know of what the subcribe to. While some are 'real' libertarians, that designation is often been miss used by ashamed Republicans. If you need proof just take spin on any crowded highway, keep an eye out for "W" campaign stickers, I'll bet even money that you won't see one. I live in the northeast, and up until about a year ago, one could still see stickers for "W" often on the road, some even from the 2000 campaign, but not any longer. I started seeing this about 6 months ago, only because I have alway looked out for 'those idiots who voted for that bastard'.

There is a deserved, deep distrust with the Republican party these days, and many of them are trying to find a new political stand to lean on. The simple definition of Libertarianism as "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is very appealing to intelligent men who fear a burdening deficit may erode our economic health, and talk of 'Christian Values' from leadership which believe that the poor should be forgotten. Years of training by the Water boy and others of his ilk, have colored their arguments 'Red', but I suspect that as they, for the first time in their lives, start considering 'not being a Republican', will take a hard look at the issues and find more carefully considered arguments, than the hyperbole they have accepted as fact for so long. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we may be seeing some big changes of the political landscape. Admittedly, it's a small chance, but I believe that in 2008 we will start seeing Libertarian candidates 'do well' and perhaps even win in some red states (maybe even taking some of the new blue house seats too).

the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/

I think you just described their platform.

"We should create a new republican party. Where we actually, you know. Believe republican things."

And neither is the libertarian party. To say that the party is for a complete removal of government from the country is to confuse them with Anarchists.

To read their official platform leads me to conclude the following:

"Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership."

They are against the concept of zoning laws and public health legislation. So under the Libertarian model I can do whatever I want with my property -- and my neighbor can sell his property to a industrial concern that will cause my property values to drop like a brick. And when did public health legislation become "unduly burdensome"? Are regulations that food service workers wash their hands really a removal of property rights?

"All publicly owned infrastructures including dams and parks shall be returned to private ownership and all taxing authority for such public improvements shall sunset."

Parks and dams serve the people and belong to the people. Why should they be owned by a private concern and operated for profit?

I'm not quoting the parts of the platform that I agree with -- and there are money. I'm just pointing out the parts that a vast majority of Americans would have a problem with. And while I'd acknowledge that not all Libertarian candidates are likely to agree with these objections (just like all Republicans aren't pro-life) it is on the official party webpage and it is a part of their platform.

And please don't assume that I'm attacking the Libertarian Party. I have a great respect for what they stand for and find myself in 100% agreement with them on the "war" on drugs, gun rights, civil liberties, abortion and victimless crime. I'm just pointing out the stances on issues that I'd have to carefully consider before I could vote for a LP candidate.

In the real world, instead of being ruled by a government which is ruled only by it's own incompetence and presumably by its constitution, a libertarian state would be ruled over by either warlord princes who govern small city-states via force of arms (if government is gone completely) or corprations which govern through greed and abuse of justice, (if there actually was a police force and state military.)

It's not a bill, but a party. The Libertarian Party is all about the government leaving us alone as much as possible. If that's what you believe, then you should vote Libertarian.

"Now, we have bastardized Republicans (Neocons) who are out to create National IDs, document any passage in and out of the country..."

You must have a short memory. National ID cards were part of the Democratic health care initiative (aka 'Hillarycare') in 1993, and it was Hillary again in 2003 that proposed the introduction of a national ID card to monitor immigration.

It looks like the republicrats have both sides convinced that these ID cards are a conspiracy of the "other guys".

http://www.lp.org/

In the late 19th century they realized that hands-off was the best approach. But they also realized that they had to protect the market in a free and competitive atmosphere.

And most Libertarians do not really want a standing Armyc nor do they want interventionism or US imperialism. The Constitution limits it for 2 years anyway. Many Libertarians would prefer a private military (of which I personally do not). I think you need ro re-read some L(l)ibertairan issue statements before you begin to talk about things in which you are obviously uneducated.

Here are some resources:
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
http://www.theadvocates.org/publications.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

According to what I have read the largest expenditures in the Fed budget are welfare programs; NOT the military (but that is #2).

Although you are not American, your ignorance is showing like a great deal of many of my fellow citizens. I'll ignore for the second that you cannot even spell Constitution or realize that it is capitalized (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that English isn't your first language). But also each state government has a constitution of its own and they are all modeled after the US Constitution.

While our ideas might differ about quality/quantity of regulation, most everything else you have mentioned is inaccurate and pure rubbish. Please get an education or a clue.

As an American, I can say that you're pretty much accurate there. The voting system has led to a two-party system, which has led to bitter, bitter partisanship like you describe - despite the fact that the Duopoly is essentially a single monster with two heads. Now that the election is over, it will return to being the back-patting good ol' boy club.

The OP is right - divided government is good. So then why can't we get some stronger third parties? I, for one, would love to see no single party with a majority in either house. A coalition government seems like it would be much slower to pass new laws as well, which is a good thing for freedom. Nobody in this country looks beyond the "us vs them" of election day to the deeper (though mundane) issues of voting methods that could actually fix the problem we all complain about. All my fellow Americans know how to do is swing the pendulum back and forth. The system itself doesn't allow (much less encourage) real challenge to occur. Voting doesn't make much difference, because there are no choices, so the USA has one of the lowest rates of involvement of any free country.

My analysis is that voters wanted a change. They rejected the leadership of GWB and took it out on Congress, but it isn't necessarily an endorsement of Democrats. I think there are a lot of disillusioned Republicans out there, that would have taken the opportunity to vote Constitution or Libertarian if the media had bothered to inform them of these alternatives. But the media seems to be in collusion with the Duopoly, because those bitter two-way feuds make good news.

So, why is it that most libertarians spend so much time talking about private ownership of property, and business? Why is it they spend so much time railing against the existence of government, but hardly any time talking about the Constitution or human rights?

Libertarians talk about private property because they strongly believe in private property and property rights. When government owns all the property you have communism which means big government. Business is an extention of property and Libertarians believe businesses can do better and more to improve the economy and people's lives. There may be other things they consider but I can't enumerate them now. As for human rights, government is the biddest violator of them. A small and limited government wouldn't have the power to violate those rights. The National Platform of the Libertarian Party explains what the LP states for better than I can.

I'm serious about these questions, because most of the Libertarians I encounter seem to care mostly about profits and wealth, and don't pay much lip service to human freedoms and rights. Basically a socially Darwinian approach, it seems. I find it frustrating, because of the way "liberty" is at the root of the name, but it only seems to apply to the "liberty" to make a profit at all costs, and hardly ever to human liberty.

Some libertarians, notice here I used a small "l" whereas above I used it capitalized, do believe corporations should do whatever they want. I and others call them something like corporate libertarians but to us they aren't real libertarians. This division isn't much different than divisions in the Democrat or Republican parties. Take the "conservative" Republican who claim to believe in small government, I say claim because many are going along with Bush's expansion of government, and the neocons. I can only name two that do stand up against the expansion of government, rep Ron Paul of Texas and former congressman Bob Barr.

Well Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president and while he ran as a republican in Texas he's never renounced the LP. Actually the LP was started as an offsghoot of the Republican Party. During Nixon's admin some Republicans disagreed with Nixon's and other Republican's stances so they started the LP. Bob Barr though a conservative has worked with the ACLU against elements of the Patriot Act.

I didn't say get rid of all government, no I firmly believe we have to have a strong court system.

Well, that means you disagree with Libertarianism and the so-called "free market."

I know of no Libertarian who advocates getting rid of courts, the only grous I know that does are anarchists. Taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz it says I am a Libertarian. This from one page of the Libertarin Party website says "By the way, 'Who's to says WHO has property rights?' The Courts, one of the FEW legitimate functions of government is to zealously protect the property rights of individuals and enforce contracts. Not a very 'anarchistic' stance is it?" Libertarians do believe in a strong court.

In a hypothetical Libertarian world, they would probably be all owned by the same people. World of mouth would be futile against monopolies of this scale. You could protest all you want, but in a world where corporations controlled everything, it would mean diddly-squat.

Ah but in that Libertarian world there woudn't be the Corporate Aristocracy we have now. Probably the best example of a Libertarian Founding Father of the USA is Thomas Jefferson and that is one of the things he warned was a threat to democracy, the Corporate Aristocracy, especially as concerned banks. He believed that as they get bigger they gather more and more power unto themself. Monopolies wouldn't exist in the libertarian world. Actually at first Jefferson didn't like or believe that patents should be issued, it was only after his friend James Madison talked with him when he thought patents would advance science and society. Once convinced he sat down with actuary tables and calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. This he felt was the optimum length of tyme to encourage inventors to keep coming with new things.

I didn't say get rid of all government, no I firmly believe we have to have a strong court system.

Well, that means you disagree with Libertarianism and the so-called "free market."

I know of no Libertarian who advocates getting rid of courts, the only grous I know that does are anarchists. Taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz it says I am a Libertarian. This from one page of the Libertarin Party website says "By the way, 'Who's to says WHO has property rights?' The Courts, one of the FEW legitimate functions of government is to zealously protect the property rights of individuals and enforce contracts. Not a very 'anarchistic' stance is it?" Libertarians do believe in a strong court.

In a hypothetical Libertarian world, they would probably be all owned by the same people. World of mouth would be futile against monopolies of this scale. You could protest all you want, but in a world where corporations controlled everything, it would mean diddly-squat.

Ah but in that Libertarian world there woudn't be the Corporate Aristocracy we have now. Probably the best example of a Libertarian Founding Father of the USA is Thomas Jefferson and that is one of the things he warned was a threat to democracy, the Corporate Aristocracy, especially as concerned banks. He believed that as they get bigger they gather more and more power unto themself. Monopolies wouldn't exist in the libertarian world. Actually at first Jefferson didn't like or believe that patents should be issued, it was only after his friend James Madison talked with him when he thought patents would advance science and society. Once convinced he sat down with actuary tables and calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. This he felt was the optimum length of tyme to encourage inventors to keep coming with new things.

I didn't say get rid of all government, no I firmly believe we have to have a strong court system.

Well, that means you disagree with Libertarianism and the so-called "free market."

I know of no Libertarian who advocates getting rid of courts, the only grous I know that does are anarchists. Taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz it says I am a Libertarian. This from one page of the Libertarin Party website says "By the way, 'Who's to says WHO has property rights?' The Courts, one of the FEW legitimate functions of government is to zealously protect the property rights of individuals and enforce contracts. Not a very 'anarchistic' stance is it?" Libertarians do believe in a strong court.

In a hypothetical Libertarian world, they would probably be all owned by the same people. World of mouth would be futile against monopolies of this scale. You could protest all you want, but in a world where corporations controlled everything, it would mean diddly-squat.

Ah but in that Libertarian world there woudn't be the Corporate Aristocracy we have now. Probably the best example of a Libertarian Founding Father of the USA is Thomas Jefferson and that is one of the things he warned was a threat to democracy, the Corporate Aristocracy, especially as concerned banks. He believed that as they get bigger they gather more and more power unto themself. Monopolies wouldn't exist in the libertarian world. Actually at first Jefferson didn't like or believe that patents should be issued, it was only after his friend James Madison talked with him when he thought patents would advance science and society. Once convinced he sat down with actuary tables and calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. This he felt was the optimum length of tyme to encourage inventors to keep coming with new things.

I just listed what would make someone less of a threat. Show me a politian who says they're going to make government smaller and less capable. Show me the one who says they're going to remove the internet from the influence of the US (and every other) government. That's the only one I might trust.

You mean like Libertarians? Because the Libertarian Party wants to reduce the size and power of government they get my support.

Some people were saying that they would leave if Bush was reelected, and I shared many points of view with them aside from that one. My reaction to that was always to reply with "If you dislike it, why would you leave? If you dislike it, work harder to change it."

And that's exactly what I'm doing.

If some of you haven't done so, look into the Libertarian Party's stance on issues.

I don't know why parent was modded funny. As a right winger I'm so mad at the big spending, big government Republicans that I've almost talked myself into staying home in November. I don't know which is worse: how much I absolutely despise the Democrats or my anger at the Republicans. I wish ballots had "none of the above" which, if it "won", would force new elections with new candidates.

Time for you to get involved in the Libertarian Party. Otherwise you'll continue to get big-government politicians elected. In my short life the Republicans have gone from Regan, who talked really great about cutting government but was powerless to do it b/c of a Democratic Congress, to Bush the Younger who rarely even talks the talk now and has a Republican Congress that spends like drunken sailors. The only time having a Republican Congress kinda worked was when Klinton was in office. Pretty sad that a Democrat has a better record of reducing the increase in government spending than a Republican. However Klinton was such a scary guy that even insane politicans had to act reasonable.

It's time to forsake the D&R's.

I think this may be a situation regarding the best of two evils. On one hand you have the BS that has been talked about throughout this thread. On the other hand you have homeschooling. The latter can eleviate the problems that have been discussed here (although this is actually one of the problems [over-protective parenting] that we have mentioned already).

One thing to think about regarding home schooling is the lack of interactivity with other people. This can cause anti-social behavior later in life or just a lack in understanding how to interact and communicate with others. I don't have children, but I know that if/when I do I will be looking to put them in a private school of some sort. In the meantime I will be lobbying for the privatization of schools. Then you can choose where you want to send your children and not have to pay wasteful taxes on the schools that do this stupid crap.

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000397.shtml is a decent article that talks a bit about public vs private schools.

Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away. Is there any way for America as a country to get to a place where it wouldn't be? Is there a better way to bring about reform?

Not that I can think of. The Duopoly has no desire for reform - the current system works just fine for their interests. Alternate systems such as Condorcet voting offer honest chances to all candidates, forcing them to compete on the strength of their platforms and ideals. To get someone in who wants reform, you have to work within the current system to elect someone outside the Duopoly. But the current system is unlikely to get that person without reform. It's catch-22 - but you'll never get anything if you don't try! Vote for any party that promises to shrink the size and scope of government and remove power from the gov't to restore it to the people. You may not agree with them 100%, but if the goal is to shrink gov't, they'll have less ability to do those things that you disagree with.

And isn't that the whole point?

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

That's funny, I could've sworn the USA PATRIOT Act was approved by the senate 98 to 1, with the 98 being almost 50/50 democrats and republicans.

Didn't I hear Howard Dean give a speech on how we 'need' national ID cards?

I agree, everything is going to hell, but if you want to start fixing it, the first step is to strike the word 'neocon' from your statement, and replace it with 'republicrat'.

They make you angry, they take your liberty, and then they convince you that only half of them are at fault: that's the nature of the 2-party system.

Vote Libertarian.