Slashdot Mirror

That depends: Do you believe that the person you elect will change things for the better? If the new boss is the same as the old boss, it doesn't matter which party he represents. It's all a shell game. Americans are being similarly oppressed, yet many of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act were things the Clinton administration fought very hard to get, yet never managed to win. So am I now to believe that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against black bag searches? Of course it isn't. They both suck, so there's no point in voting for either of them. If the voter turnout is too low the election becomes illegitimate. The leadership looses its authority without popular consent.

The Democrats and Republicans weren't the only parties that had candidates running for offices, and I didn't vote for eithe Scary Kerry or Dubya Bush. My support went to Micheal Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. He didn't win but he didn't get much media attention either, actually Dems and Reps did what they could to stop him from being at the debates and getting the message out. Both him and David Cobb, the Green Party candidate, were arrested when they tried to go to debates. This is a problem the LP has, getting the message out. What I'd like to see is something like the online activity for Dean in 2003/4.

The Libertarian party believes that the only justified function of government is the protection of the lives, rights and property of its citizens. Thus, your strategy might not work too well as the local police would come and remove you, the local judiciary would try and convict you of trespass and/or assault and/or theft, and the punishment would probably be a bit unpleasant. Of course, the home's owner might have saved the government a lot of trouble by dispatching you him/herself.

This is not to say that Libertarians don't support privatization of some law enforcement (i.e., I may contract my law enforcement needs to a private firm if I want a higher quality service - such as a full-time body guard).

This is of course the Libertarian view -- in my experience it's hard to determine what the libertarian view is as they range from anarchists to those who don't seem all that unlike some of the creeps we routinely elect under the Republican or Democrat banner.

AC wrote: "Voting for the good instead of the lesser evil may be a good start."

But this good start in itself needs a good start. How can the good get the word out to TV-watching Americans? I myself am a card-carryin' Libertarian, but given that I can't find a job, I can't afford to donate much more money to the Party.

Err, no. Rand believed that selfishness was a virtue and altruism a vice to be avoided. Or at least that is the interpretation here.

Err, yes. And she considered altruism a vice because it was unreachable.

It seems you assume every Libertarian has to suckle from Rand's teat completely. Why? Aristotle is still influential and had quite a few good ideas...he also posited women had a different amount of teeth than men. Without checking. I believe selflessness to be superfluous, but so is my guitar playing, reading, and most everything recreational. If I started a thread about how every Republican is a backwoods Christian, I'm sure every backwoods Christian on /. would tell me where to stuff it. If someone calls every Libertarian on /. a selfish Randian, they get modded up.

Actually, no. Please note that the most adamant defender of Libertarianism on this thread appears to be barely literate and only partially coherent. Add to this the fact that the other defenders are contradicting each other as to what do their own ideals mean, and are unable to answer simple questions. Sprinkle it all with an apparent confusion as to Rand's function in the Libertarian line of thought as well as even the basic meaning of her ideas -- which you just exhibited.

Oh please--"Macs r better cuz all u wintel M$ l4m3rs dont no wut ur doin--seriously, i work at tech support hotline n u guys call up n dnt no anything LOL" Most people hear about Libertarianism and laissez faire politics and just go for it--it's not their fault a good idea attracts morons. But--in fact--there is a cohesive group of Libertarians at http://lp.org/ Only about 22,000 strong, but dedicated. You don't base your opinion of Linux by reading a bunch of posts by n00bs more concerned with trolling than intelligent conversation, do you?

Furthermore I'd like to point out that the views of even the major parties can differ drastically from state to state--a Republican running for office in Texas != a Republican running for office in California.

That is why people have hard times with Libertarians, because it seems that Libertarianism is merely an incoherent amalgamate of half-baked ideas with a central motive of extreme selfishness and greed.

We cut 2.2 billion dollars of taxes last year. There are now more lower-class working families that can put bread on the table. Even if every Libertarian did it only for themselves, without a hint of respect for what their constituents want/need, do you care? Politics is politics. It's a small party, and I can guarentee you more Libertarian canidates listen to those they represent than canidates of the major parties. If they don't, they don't get elected.

Which, I would agree, does divide them from most decent people.

You're right--one day, though (God help me), I'll be decent like you. I can't wait! I'll go buy some blinders. Wouldn't want anything spooking me as my jockey parades me!

Yes and no.

Nope. E.g., "Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending."

especially America's right wing hate Socialists with a passion

Cuba and Venezuela by contrast are left leaning Socialism which is focused on things like universal health care, education, elimination of poverty, land reform and Republican's in particular HATE people that do nasty stuff like that.

I can show you tons of private citizens (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc.) that are far better off financially in the U.S.A. than upper members of the govt. The wealthiest 400 (non-govt.) U.S.A. citizens are worth $955 billion, just shy of $1 Trillion dollars! You won't see personal wealth like that in any society based on Socialism, unless of course it is the wealth of the leaders of that Socialist nation. At least in America, "We The People" have a chance to better ourselves through hard work and a little luck.

There are _many_ differences between a "text book" Socialist govt. and what Cuba and Venezuela implement. In Cuba and Venezuela, those in power are extremely wealthy and well provided for, while the rest of those two nations suffers. To me that is _nothing_ like what a "text book" Socialist govt. should be. Do you think Mr. Chavez is suffering with his poor? Nope. Do you think Castro is suffering with his poor? Nope. The problem with _every_ Socialist govt. to date is that those in power always take care of themselves first. The rest of the nation comes second.

I personally will take Capitalism and Freedom over Socialism any day. At least with Capitalism I can have a chance to provide for myself if I have the skills and dedication.

Libertarians claim to be the third largest party in the US, and they range from wanting small government to virtually no government at all. They all agree that the government should be dramatically smaller than it is today. Their philosophy is guided by the principal that freedom is always more important than "safety" and force. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to do as they please so long as they do not take away the freedoms of others. The Libertarian party in the US has a very detailed section on their website with points illustrating how this philosophy shapes their political stance on nearly everything: Libertarian Issues & Positions.

If you want to read some engaging essays and articles by the Libertarian Party's most prominant writer (and former presidential candidate), I suggest visiting Harry Browne's Website. You can also find alot of libertarian essays and editorials at Lew Rockwell's website

Enjoy!

The real key there is "To promote the progress of". The whole reason they are allowed to make IP law is to promote science and the arts to progress. The reasoning being, we are a capatalism, and so there needs to be a profit motive. For that, you can't have people simply copying your work at no charge.

You hit the nail right on the head there, "To promote the progress of". At first Thomas Jefferson was against copyrights and patents but eventually his friend James Madison talked and convinced him that they could be good. Once he was Jefferson sat down and used an actuary table to calculate that a copyright should last for 14 years with the possibility of a 14 year extension for a maximum of 28 years.

That's one of the things that annoys me about many people (including many politicians) is they seem to think the constution is some quaint little document to be ignored when they don't like what it says. No dammit, it's the supreme law of the land, the one to which all others must subordinate.

Unfortunately you're all too correct about this. Too many politicans think of the Constitution of the USA as that quaint document that has no bearing in the US today. Otherwise they'd never have voted from so many bills they signed, the two biggest in recent years being the PATRIOT Act and the Real ID Act. This disregard for the constitution is one reason I try to vote for Libertarian Party candidates when I can. Neither of the two major parties, Democrats nor Republicans, follow the constitution.

There is much dissent within the GOP as well, as the small government faction is dismayed with Bush-the-spender.

Absolutely. The third largest party, the Libertarian party is garnering significant support from the Republicans.

"Unfortunately now the government regulates as lobbied and not necessarily as needed. What is THIS model called?"

Libertarianism

Not quite, Libertarianism doesn't want regulations, at least not excessive regulations. Liberty wants small government and regulations grow government.

Ashcroft had the Spirit of Justice statue covered up because of a boobie for example which also costed $8000 for the curtain at tax payers expense.

Surely there are better examples of censorship among Republicans. Maybe the flag-burning ammendment thing? Or maybe McCain's desire to censor the internet (as an Arizonan, I apologize for this man).

Democrats call themselves "the party of free speech," but they enact legislation like sexual harassment laws and the hate crimes law which effectively hinder free speech (whether you like it or not). Not to mention the grandfather post about video game and internet censorship brought to the forefront by Hillary and Joseph "Stalin" Leiberman.

I do agree with your premise though:

I think it's fair to say both the Democrats and the Republicans are at the forefront of censorship.

This is why I don't vote for either party.

Yup. Welcome to the Libertarian party! Have a look at the following:
 
* http://www.cato.org/
* http://www.reformthelp.org/
* http://www.lp.org/
* http://www.theadvocates.org/
 
There's also some good info on Libertarians on WiKiPedia. Though sometimes divided we support drug reform, welfare reform, social security reform, minimal government and above all else personal liberty. We're growing stronger each and every year.

I don't have any FDR era experience either, hell I have to read up on the Reagan-era stuff to fill in the details. That doesn't mean I'm not informed about administrations that were in power before I was old enough to experience them though.

As for content, Bush II may spend liberally, but that doesn't make him a liberal. His foreign policy is most definitely not liberal. His social security reforms most definitely indicate a shift away from social services, a very conservative idea. On what issues exactly has he proposed more federal oversight, defense matters perhaps, but that's the mark of a neo-con. As for health insurance, environmental issues, and corporate taxation, he's as conservative as they come, dismantling any sort of oversight he can and reducing corporate tax burdens. As for the Shaivo case, Karl Rove saw that was a PR disaster waiting to happen and advised him to side-step it (IMHO). Once again, defense issues like the Patriot Act do not constitute oversight, they constitute traditional neo-conservative ideas about the lengths the government should be allowed to go to in protecting the populace. And finally, yes, he does spend liberally I agree. Unfortunately his spending does not go to typical liberal causes such as social services, but rather to war and corporate welfare, decidedly un-liberal ways to spend money.

Bush is a conservative through and through who just happens to spend a lot of money. If you want to call him financially liberal, be my guest, but he is liberal only in the amount he spends, and not what he spends the money on.

That being said, his fiscal policy is very far from traditional Republican values (pre-Reagan). His big-government approach also diverges from the old party line. This doesn't mean he's not a 'real' Republican or a conservative, it simply means that the Republican party is moving in a new direction. They're taking a more agressive role in ensuring corporate profits than ever before, and this takes a larger government and more spending.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think anyone can, in good concience, call Bush II a liberal. Whether you're comparing him to the current group of politicians, or any in the last 100 years, he's a conservative through and through on almost every issue you could differentiate on (except for perhaps volume of spending, as previously explained).

If you're looking for smaller government, less spending, and less oversight, you're looking for a libertarian, not a liberal.

Hehe, I don't think they've ever really stood for small government. If you really want smaller government (less taxes, more freedom), you have to vote for Libertarians.

Now there is no "small government" party, it seems. They both want to meddle and they both want your money (OK, technically, today's GOP just wants to spend your money, they don't actually bother to collect it first, but that's a minor quibble).

It sounds like you are a Liberatrian, or should become one. Glad to hear it.

Tor

Oh, you mean the same governments that have squandered over 300 billion US dollars to blow up Afganistan and Iraq? You mean the same governments that violate the Constitution and other common laws on a regular basis in the name of protecting us against "terrorism" or drugs or "immorality"? Excuse me for questioning the integrity of the supreme governments you had in mind. After all, governments and politicians that run them never make mistakes and are never dishonest. Idiot.

Also, If you really believe that our government is as oppressive as you state then please move to another country.

Already have. I moved to the Caribbean so I could ensure that not one dime of the money I earn is squandered on injustice sponsered by your flawless governments. But, you should know, that I still fly back to the states every 2 years so that I can vote for the only party in the US that believes in real freedom. So, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm way ahead of you.

Here are a few of my favorites... it's almost as if the founding fathers were speaking of this very bill.

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

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." James Madison

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

If you want to change things, visit http://www.lp.org/

Hear, hear!

This kind of thing can't be said often/loud enough.

The Republican and Democratic Parties differ only in what they want to control in your life. But make no mistake, they both want to control your life.

Please, people, please! Check out the Libertarian Party. They get my local and state votes.

Damn good point. We need smaller government so that it can't be sponsered by corporations or any other monied special interest groups. We need to vote for libertarians.

We live in a capitalist society, and in that kind of society products and services and provided by companies based on the greatest demand.

The analogy between demand and votes, often called voting with one's dollar, is a common rhetorical device. Besides, apathetic American voters elected the Republican and Democratic legislators who enacted the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA by voice vote, putting us into this mess in the first place.

When your right to vote gets taken away because your black, or your right to drive gets taken away because you're a woman, then you can start complaining.

My right to vote, and the right of everybody else who doesn't agree with the platform of the GOP or the ASS to vote, is already taken away under the equilibrium of Duverger's Law, which applies to all first-past-the-post election systems.

> When the Libertarian Party's alternative quits being "the government knows nothing", I'll vote for them.

I am a Libertarian, and I don't see anything the Party platform that can be construed as "the government knows nothing."

I would start by saying "the government is terribly inefficient and should be reduced".

Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can, or at least substitue legislation for the necessity of parenting.

I find it funny that whenever republicans do this, everyone starts talking about "THE RADICAL RIGHT," but when democrats lead the way, it's all about "the government" or "politicians" in general.

It works the same way with gun control: when republicans do it, it's "big government," when democrats do it, it's "the liberal's" fault.

It's so confusing, that's why I can't vote for either of those two parties.

In general the Libertarian Party believes that the government should never initiate the use of force. That the purpose of the government is to protect the people from others using either force or fraud against them. That the Constitution should be followed exactly as written...if you don't like it, change it but don't ignore it or it has no meaning.

In general the Libertarian Party opposes criminalizing anything which fails to fall into the force or fraud catagory and believes that those crimes are almost always properly at the state, rather than federal, level. The best thing about having laws at the state level is that it is easier to move to another state than to leave the country altogether - so you can live somewhere where your political beliefs are most closely represented.

In general the Liberatian Party believes that tax dollars should only pay for those things which cannot be paid for in any other way and which are permissable within the force/fraud framework.

Most Libertarians would oppose criminalization of abortion but all would oppose taxpayer funding for it. They would also oppose judicially mandated abortion laws in favor of those voted for by the people.

Most Libertarians would oppose the death penalty (particularly at the federal level.)

Most Libertarians oppose the war in Iraq although, since the Senate declared war, few would term it mass murder.

For more specific information on what the Libertarian Party stands for, visit http://lp.org/ and have your questions answered. And, no, I am not a Libertarian.

The Libertarian Party opposes the Iraq war, and generally opposes the death penalty. (Specifically, they oppose "death-qualified" juries, where jurors who would never vote for execution are disqualified from capital cases).

I'll admit to not knowing a lot about the LP, but I hope they can at least be consistent.

See here for their positions. I'm a small-l libertarian and disagree with the LP on a number of issues, but in general they are very consistent.

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research. [my emphasis]

"Die-hard" Libertarians don't support ANY income taxes in the first place so this entire dilemna wouldn't even exist if Libertarians were in charge.

Sorry, but BOTH liberals and "conservatives" make government bigger and take more property rights and freedoms from citizens every year. If you want real freedom and gauranteed property rights, you'll have to vote for a libertarian.

Dammit -- we do not need more taxes! ESPECIALLY on communication services and ESPECIALLY when every U.S. citizen with a telephone is still paying the Spanish-American war temporary tax from 1898 .

We do not need more taxes. We need a more efficient government.

If they want to slip it in so you don't notice, they could always just increase this little tax a cent or two, or widen it to cover broadband -- after all, if our telephone users are still paying for a war that was over that was over 107 years ago, it's only fair that broadband users do, too!

In testimony before the Justice Committee, Tom Ridge revealed that 400 individuals have been prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

Thanks for this, it's the first I've heard of it I'll have to check it out.

Actually it was the CIA head, George Tennet(sp?) who was against the Patriot Act

Also thanks for this, I knew someone in the Bush Admin was against the PATRIOT Act but couldn't recall who.

I'm not sure that Jefferson would have qualified as a "Libertarian" in today's views. Definitely he would be considered strongly conservative, but he was also strongly against social programs.

How does being against social programs mean Jefferson wouldn't qualify as a Libertarian? Libertarians are also against government controlled social programs.

Conservatives believe in as small a federal government as possible, which, in my opinion would mean: the Armed forces (including the Coast Guard), Immigration/Border Patrol, and the Interstate Commerce Committee to assure that prices remain the same between states (i.e. they regulate interstate commerce.)

This and liberty is what Liberals like Jefferson believed in as well. Along with other Liberals Jefferson believed in liberty and small government, the bigger government is the less there is freedom and liberty.

That's it.

Amen!!!

States should have control of everything else.

The states or the people. Actually I'd say "the people or the states".

I believe there should be a national sales tax to support the government, because that most fairly taxes those who consume the most and benefits those who produce the most.

Amen!!! Reduce government and get rid of income tax. For what little govenment should be doing a sales tax, pollution tax, and user fees should be more than adequate to pay expenses.

"Wow, this guy is really hitting the points on the head. Small government, state's rights, limited taxation..." And then he said, "And I believe that clothing should be optional at all times."

Trying not to crack up... Yeap, clothing should be optional though there are tymes they are advantageous. Though not a member of any now at one tyme I was a member of a naturalist club.

I could also site hundreds of quotations where Jefferson rails against social programs, saying that "milking the breast of government" is the greatest ill that can befall a society.

So don't think of Jefferson as a Libertarian

Again I don't see where Jefferson is disqualified as a Libertarian because he was against social programs. Libertarians are also against social programs, at least as far as the government running and spending tax money on them is concerned. From the National Libertarian Party FAQ:

Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people's right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.

Highlights of the Libertarian Party's "Ending the Welfare State" Proposal

From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure.

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare

In testimony before the Justice Committee, Tom Ridge revealed that 400 individuals have been prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

Thanks for this, it's the first I've heard of it I'll have to check it out.

Actually it was the CIA head, George Tennet(sp?) who was against the Patriot Act

Also thanks for this, I knew someone in the Bush Admin was against the PATRIOT Act but couldn't recall who.

I'm not sure that Jefferson would have qualified as a "Libertarian" in today's views. Definitely he would be considered strongly conservative, but he was also strongly against social programs.

How does being against social programs mean Jefferson wouldn't qualify as a Libertarian? Libertarians are also against government controlled social programs.

Conservatives believe in as small a federal government as possible, which, in my opinion would mean: the Armed forces (including the Coast Guard), Immigration/Border Patrol, and the Interstate Commerce Committee to assure that prices remain the same between states (i.e. they regulate interstate commerce.)

This and liberty is what Liberals like Jefferson believed in as well. Along with other Liberals Jefferson believed in liberty and small government, the bigger government is the less there is freedom and liberty.

That's it.

Amen!!!

States should have control of everything else.

The states or the people. Actually I'd say "the people or the states".

I believe there should be a national sales tax to support the government, because that most fairly taxes those who consume the most and benefits those who produce the most.

Amen!!! Reduce government and get rid of income tax. For what little govenment should be doing a sales tax, pollution tax, and user fees should be more than adequate to pay expenses.

"Wow, this guy is really hitting the points on the head. Small government, state's rights, limited taxation..." And then he said, "And I believe that clothing should be optional at all times."

Trying not to crack up... Yeap, clothing should be optional though there are tymes they are advantageous. Though not a member of any now at one tyme I was a member of a naturalist club.

I could also site hundreds of quotations where Jefferson rails against social programs, saying that "milking the breast of government" is the greatest ill that can befall a society.

So don't think of Jefferson as a Libertarian

Again I don't see where Jefferson is disqualified as a Libertarian because he was against social programs. Libertarians are also against social programs, at least as far as the government running and spending tax money on them is concerned. From the National Libertarian Party FAQ:

Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people's right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.

Highlights of the Libertarian Party's "Ending the Welfare State" Proposal

From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure.

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare

I feel your pain. I voted against Kerry in 2004 rather than voting for the Libertarian candidate. I actually hope Hillary gets the nomination in 08 - it will mean the Dems are a complete non-issue. We will be back to a two party system, the Libertarians and the Republicans.

Ford cannot credibly be described as a conservative.

It depends on how you define "conservative" as the meaning is changing, has changed from previous definitions. The same with "liberal". Thomas Jefferson's and Thomas Paine's "Liberal" was someone who believed in a small and limited government, but today it's closer to socialism or big government. Meanwhile conservative back then believed in a big and powerful federal government. Conservatives are still for big government, the only difference between conservatives and liberals today is in what part of government is big. The only political party today with the classical liberal outlook of a small and limited government is the Libertarian Party.

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

And part of what it means to be sovereign is to, in essense, "own" yourself. There is no contradiction between supporting freedom of capital, and property rights, and supporting the rights of individuals.

They are just angry failed small businessmen that don't like paying taxes.

I suppose you have a source for this assertion and can back it up with some hard facts? No? I didn't think so...


"Information wants to be free" - That is not property.


The whole "information wants to be free" mantra has almost nothing to do with the American LP. Many Libertarians are actually divided over the idea of "intellectual property" and ideas such as patents and copyrights. For you to make this statement in this context only illustrates, again, that you really are uniformed and clueless.


The fake american "libertarians" want us to be the slaves of property.

Utter bollocks. That statement doesn't even mean anything. Sounds like a "sound bite" you heard on a street corner and decided to parrot.

If the Constitution was designed to be a living, evolving document, any evolutions should further limit the governmen't power, not increase them.

Shameless Political Party Plug: If you want REAL freedom, vote for a Libertarian

Real conservatives have let fake Conservatives steal their name. In exchange for getting carried along with the power grab. Except few actual conservatives have any power in the deal, and the fake conservatives use their unprecedented power to destroy much of what true conservatives value. In the bargain, though, lots of true conservatives have become fake conservatives. Because they value the power more than they value what they used to say they would conserve, until they had to actually do it.

If you had said "real liberals" I would agree, but I don't know about what you are refering to as "real conservatives". Real, er classical liberals, as Thomas Jefferson was believed in a small and limited government, states rights, and "liberty", therefore "liberal". On the other hand the conservatives of his tyme believed in a big and powerful federal government. Today that pretty much describes both republicans and democrats, the political party today that comes the closest to the Jeffersonian ideas of small and limited government and liberty is the Libertarian Party

We have more than to parties in the U.S. as well.

We've got the Greens.

We've got the Libertarians.

We've go the Socialists.

We've got the Communists. (Who seem to have abandoned the hammer for a gear, but they're sticking to the sickle.)

We've got the Constitution Party.

Now, there is some collusion between the two entrenched parties and the media to create a de facto two-party system. Furthermore, plurality voting creates the environment for a two-party system.

Some are willing to fight it.

-Peter

Keep voting Democrat and a police state is what you'll get, too.

You're fooling yourself if you think they're much different. Both major parties want to increase government power. That power can then be abused by anyone who happens to grab it. The only solution is to strip government of its excessive power, and strictly limit it to legitimate functions that we the people authorize it to do. Much like the Constitution actually intended. *gasp* What a concept!

If you enjoy freedom and you're not voting Libertarian or Constitution, you're wasting your vote. It's quite obvious we don't get more freedom by voting for the incumbent Duopoly.

Not a suprise to me at all, Europe's lack of reason explains it all. Bunch of Zombies themselves that depend on the government to tell them whats best instead of acctually thinking for themselves. Should expect the same for computers. Bunch of socialist morons without a clue of what personal responsibility is. Maybe they should visit this, http://www.lp.org/, more often.

Consider also the fact that today's young (and soon-to-be) voters express a resounding sense of empathy when it comes to privacy matters. Evidently, simple principle isn't enough to motivate anymore. Today's average voter: "Hmm, I don't really think I like what either the democrat or the republican are saying... but I have to choose between the two! I'll vote for the guy who drank the most beer." http://www.lp.org/

OK, I think I see what you are saying and I will try to explain the US point of view here.

We certainly see that poverty is a basic problem which leads to many other problems. However, our view is that the power to fix any problem, including poverty, lies in the hands of the people themselves. All power originates with the people. It is up to the people to exercise that power and not to allow themselves to be pushed around.

No one is saying this is easy. In the late 1700s the US fought what was a major war for us at that time to gain our freedom. There was another war for freedom again from 1861 to 1865 which was won (slaves were freed) and lost (power was concentrated in Washington) by both sides.

Anyway, the national character of the US from an early time has been that people should help themselves and not rely on a patronizing government to help them (any government can only return to the people that which was originally taken from the people - taken either in the past through taxes or in the future through inflation).

The result of this has many aspects. One is that we believe people should be armed as a matter of principle. It is the armed civilian population which has always kept corrupt governments at bay in this country. Many of us also believe "an armed society is a polite society" which means criminals like the thought of unarmed victims.

We also believe there are four boxes which protect freedom: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo which should be used in that order (i.e., free speech, elections, jury nullification, then revolution). In order to maintain a credible threat of revolution to keep a government under control the people must be armed. No government can properly respect the authority of an unarmed populace. They may pay lip service to the populace but everyone know who is really in charge in that situation - the ones with the weapons: the government.

It is also why, historically, we have been against socialism. Socialism is only a form of organized theft (not the only one, I'll grant there are systems which claim to be "capitalistic" in which similar theft occurs through complex tax codes and regulations) which is not only immoral but which ultimately only benefits a few at the expense of the many (e.g., Stalinist Soviet Union or Cuba).

Another is we have a low tolerance for those who seek help without first trying to help themselves. Revolutions which seek to install socialist governments do not get our sympathy - see the previous paragraph.

Anyway, I think we agree the difference is cultural. I believe our way works better than anyone else's (I have been to other countries, including former Soviet republics) but that our way is not perfect except in some theoretical sense (see http://www.lp.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian, http://www.aynrand.org/, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosoph y).

Luckily, we are stilled armed in this country so we have a chance to fix our government! :-)

The 911 Service needs to be privatized or just plain abolished. 911 is Unconstitutional because it's funded by money taken from me at gunpoint, it's telling a business what to do and what not to do, it's unresponsive, and it's putting people into a false sense of security because then people get rid of their firearms and rely on the unconstitutional police state that the repukeicrats have created, of course, they play on everyone elses fear to keep themselves in office.
_________________________________________ __
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Contact THE MEDIA. Let enormous outpourings of BLOG posts to MSNBC, FOX News, CNN and all the News Blogs read your frustrations.

It is only then that CONGRESS will tune into and be prepared to actually pretend to care about their constituents.

Come 2006 Vote Libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/

Yup, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them anymore. The goals are slightly different, but they both believe in using government power to force the outcome. That's not right. Increased government power is a limit on freedom. I say, vote Constitution or Libertarian.

If you want to wrestle power away from the third parties, do what I've done since I turned 18. Join the free state project and vote libertarian!

Supposedly that's what the Reagan's Republican party was about, but Reagan actually increased the size and power of the federal government. No, actually the party that originally was for small government was the Democratic Party, ala Thomas Jefferson's liberalism not to be confused with today's liberals and neo liberals. Today neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want small government, the only governmental difference between the two are in what parts of government are small and what parts are big. The only political party I'm aware of who wants a small and limited government that follows the Constitution of the USA is the Libertarian Party

Exactly, I agree. This government is becoming more and more like a nanny state. People have brains, they should be able to think for themselves and take responsibility for their actions. The government shouldn't have to tell these thinking citizens what to do as if the government were the parents and the citizens were the children.

This is exactly the reason why I will become a Libertarian, among some other important ones. These nanny laws are being passed by both Democrats and Republicans, all under the similar catch phrases such as "for the children's sake" and "saving innocent creatures." Once again, people can think, and people should be able to choose their behavior freely as long as that behavior isn't infringing on the rights of others. Instead of California passing laws banning Internet hunting and all of this other nonsense, they need to combat the budget deficit, fix our schools and transportation system, and start getting out of people's personal lives and hobbies.

While I completely understand the dislike of the Republicans pushing a National ID through, I can't imagine how you think that the Democrats are the solution to get government out of our lives (see socialized healthcare, government planned retirement program - Social Security, etc). The only party left for those of us that want LESS government involvement in the lives of the average citizen is the Libertarian party http://lp.org/

Maybe all these things should be banned. After all, the government only pays for them by stealing our money.

And all I can do is vote against [Sen. Feinstein (D-CA)]... presumably for the Republican, if I'm to make a difference.

To make more of a difference, join the Libertarian Party of California and become active in getting the message of smaller government out to voters.