Slashdot Mirror

Probably a fucktard that's stealing from the rest of the people that work for a living by being on SSDI, lives with his parents because he's too stupid to take care of himself. This is the reason why the Libertarian party wants to eliminate Social Security "other than the fact that it's unconstitutional to begin with", and that is remove the worthless from this country. It's the fucking worthless like this fucktard that's ruining our country.

Next election, and every election afterwards, unless you want this country to go down the fucking tubes, then vote Libertarian for every level of the government.

You could also try the lagrest thrid party (larger than all others combined) Here

The Libs are strongly against war, and were not socialists like the greens.

Free yourself, vote Libertarian

"And also such annoyances as the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Education.

Yes, by all means, vote libertarian if you want contaminated food, unsafe planes and even more poorly educated kids."

...to vote Libertarian and help take the government's nose out of it's citizens' private lives and personal decisions.

So if only 30 of them were servers distributing copyrighted material, what were the other 170 machines for?

Remember that there's an entire political party whose platform involves cutting back on government services and letting the private sector step in to handle things competitively

Yes, I'm familiar with the Libertarian party, and have even voted for Libertarian candidates. But I don't agree with their sophmoric worship of the "free market" and property rights.

Off-topic political rambling follows:

Libertarian capitalists aren't so much about "letting the private sector step in to handle things competitively" as about simply removing government services - the Libertarian party platform is opposed to the very existance of taxation, public utilities, public schools, worker protection laws, OHSA, etcetera.

Now, Zenarchist, that I am, I'm not opposed to the eventual achievement of these goals. As Thoreau put it, "`That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." Or

But men are certainly not prepared for it just yet. As Thornley said, "Universal Enlightenment a prerequisite to abolition of the State, after which the State will inevitably vanish. Or - that failing - nobody will give a damn." I don't thnk we're near that prerequisite of Universal Enlightenment quite yet. In the meantime, I don't think that removing the governors of regulation from the engine of state capitalism, taking the brakes off of a system which is designed to consolidate wealth and power into the hands of a small class of "owners" backed by government force, is a wise move.

Want a smaller and less-power government? Fine. Let's start by revoking government-issued corporate charters, land deeds, mineral and other natural resource rights. Also out the window with government-created patents and copyrights. And the reserve banking system that concentrates wealth in the hands of bankers and capitalists, that's got to go.

Capitalism is not some natural "ground state" that government interferes with; it is the product of state power. Shrink the engine of capitalism, then we can talk about removing the governors that keep it from running out of control.

Is the idea that with lower taxes - and therefore either massive public debt, or inadequate government services - our standard and cost of living will eventually fall to that of India, or what?

Remember that there's an entire political party whose platform involves cutting back on government services and letting the private sector step in to handle things competitively, without the allegedly fascist values of the Republican Party.

1. The Libertarian Party

I donate money to these guys... yearly dues + the occassional one-off donation to help a particular project.

2. Civietown Volunteer Fire Department.

I was an active member of this VFD from about 1989 through 2000, during which time I held every position from "probie" to acting fire chief, and led the department in "calls answered" in 1999 while serving as assistant chief. I spent more hours than I care to recall conducting training meetings, working on equipment, filling out paperwork, answering calls, helping with fundraisers, going to county comissioners meetings to beg for money, etc, etc.

I have sinced moved out of their area, but I am still on the roster, and keep a set of turnout gear in my car, and answer calls when I'm down in the area visiting or on vacation or whatever. I miss being active in the fire service, but I don't miss getting up at 3:00 in the morning, when it's 10 degrees outside, to drive to the fire station to answer yet another false activation of some automatic alarm.

3. I intend to start giving more to groups like the EFF and FSF, when I get out of debt.

Does it make any difference if I burgle your home by smashing the padlock on you garage door or picking it?

Legally it does. Many states have laws against using a lockpick to commit a crime, as well as having a lockpick with intent to commit a crime. Similar laws exist for guns and bulletproof vests.

Write your representatives. Vote libertarian

More of a libertarian, really, which increases my credibility.

Oh, right. By the fact that the Libertarian plank is "government is corrupt and evil, and corporations are good and benign, therefore we need to deregulate all corps and then we can sue them if they go bad"? Sure, that will stop corps from taking shortcuts to make a profit. Oh, and if the company gets caught, they won't use their economic/legal power to reorganize into a sue-proof company, because only government is evil, right?

Yes, they would get rid of the national database of college students alright, by abolishing Pell Grants, and privatizing or abolishing Community Colleges and non-privately owned Universities. Then there would be no reason to have a National database of college students, because there would be no college students that are not rich. OF course, to the Libertarian Party, the poor is called "The Worthless"

they are an unconstitutional parasitic entity that must be abolished. Of course, everything in the government unless it's constitutional "Which of course, nothing is" should be abolished. Fuck, we don't need no government owned military, the second amendment states that a well armed militia has the right to bear arms. The people is the fucking militia, not the God Damned government. NO fucking safety nets, known as social services/welfare. if you must use them, then you need to be taken out of the gene pool. He who is willing to give up essential freedoms for temporary safety deserves neither. So in 2006 on, vote Libertarian, the ones that don't are the fucktards that are too stupid to stand on their own two fucking feet.

they are an unconstitutional parasitic entity that must be abolished. Of course, everything in the government unless it's constitutional "Which of course, nothing is" should be abolished. Fuck, we don't need no government owned military, the second amendment states that a well armed militia has the right to bear arms. The people is the fucking militia, not the God Damned government. NO fucking safety nets, known as social services/welfare. if you must use them, then you need to be taken out of the gene pool. He who is willing to give up essential freedoms for temporary safety deserves neither. So in 2006 on, vote Libertarian, the ones that don't are the fucktards that are too stupid to stand on their own two fucking feet.

Or, instead of not voting, you could join the Libertarian Party, and vote with the one party that stands for true liberty.

Actually, it's the Libertarians that want small government. Reduce the bloat, make it smaller cheaper and more efficient (all while improving our civil liberties & privacy).

The two major political parties in the US are (generall) all in favor of big government - it keeps them in control.

Intellectual property, e.g. copyright, is a legal fiction along the same lines as "corporate personhood". The mistake it appears the courts and the legislature are making is to imbue intellectual property with the same sanctity as actual physical property.

Now I'm a Libertarian who works in an idea business, so I understand the utility of intellectual property, but it seems reasonable that the law should require an actual rights-holder to affirm their rights and/or create a process by which someone who wanted to republish abandoned intellectual property could give notice to the purported rights-holder. If there was not a negative response in say, 60 days, the person would get the rights to publish the work.

Just a thought.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...killer Benihana shrimp...

Not, it's unconstitutional to tax people, period. 911 and every other emergency service like the Police and Fire Departments all need to be privatized and have people pay a subscription fee to offset the costs and so that the private organization will make some sort of profit. If a neighborhood burns to the ground or someone can't get any police protection due to non payment of the fee, then that is just natural selection taking place. Like the Libertarian Party said, it's not "Survival of the worthless", but rather "Survival of the fittest" is the way to utopia.

P.S. To the Troll that lurks around /., yes, I am a Libertarian.

Stop this nonsense. Michael Badnarik '08!

"Maybe the true problem is that the Libertarians and Greens didn't bother to field any candidates for any office other then the US President"

That is simply untrue. The LP had 707 candidates running for elected office nationwide in positions ranging from Township Advisory Boards to State Senator and everything in between.

http://www.lp.org/campaigns/candidates.php?year=20 04

I'm a Libertarian. http://www.lp.org/

It's the only party I can find that actually wants to shrink the government and actually says what they mean 99.98% of the time.

From a 2002 articale on the party website, "According to the Constitution, the federal government has the power to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries,'" he noted. "In other words, Congress can grant exclusive copyrights, which entertainers can defend, as necessary, by filing copyright infringement lawsuits.["]

The Feds should be doing nothing more and nothing less.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view& record=575

The article is an old one about a fight against one proposed "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" that would mandate anti-piracy shielding of copywrighted material on most forms of media, but last time I checked I didn't see a 'use by' date on the constitution so the position should still be valid.

I'm a Libertarian. http://www.lp.org/

It's the only party I can find that actually wants to shrink the government and actually says what they mean 99.98% of the time.

From a 2002 articale on the party website, "According to the Constitution, the federal government has the power to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries,'" he noted. "In other words, Congress can grant exclusive copyrights, which entertainers can defend, as necessary, by filing copyright infringement lawsuits.["]

The Feds should be doing nothing more and nothing less.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view& record=575

The article is an old one about a fight against one proposed "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" that would mandate anti-piracy shielding of copywrighted material on most forms of media, but last time I checked I didn't see a 'use by' date on the constitution so the position should still be valid.

Badnarik of the Libertarian Party

The libertarian party mixes the best of both worlds of democrat and republican. they take the economic choice of the democrats, mixed with the republican principles. they dont support a draft (unlike democrats) and strongly discourage war with other nations (unlike republicans). Libertarians also feel that the central government and states should reduce power and the money that disappears from backhand dealing will decrease. They support the 2nd amendment, which is why many people dont vote for them sadly. Badnarik has more leadership than both of these lunitic asses combined. He has my vote... http://lp.org/

Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance.

Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress.

Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that.

That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise.

There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business?

There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances.

A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation.

The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program.

No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and Social security have made our nation forget how to help people by our own choice. We assume of strangers, neighbors or even our close friends and famil

I know Libertarianism is pretty popular on Slashdot, but there are fairly extreme idealists. These means there are numerous problems with Libertarian positions. He has these extremely naive and idealistic idea that all problems facing the country are because of "excess regulation." Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance. Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress. Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that. That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise. There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business? There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances. A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation. The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program. No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and

Badnarik has good credentials as a geek, and I'd probably hire him for a programming or systems administration job, but he has no political experience whatsoever. Hell, he wasn't even able to get himself elected to the TEXAS House of Representives. If he (and the Libertarian party in general) are serious about getting into the White House, they need to set their sights a little lower at first: GET PEOPLE INTO OFFICE. *ANY* OFFICE. Local level, state level, whatever. School boards, town/county council, state legislatures, judgeships, etc. This serves two purposes: it shows people that Libertarians actually *can* work with the system and it gives the office-holders actual EXPERIENCE to run for higher office.

Specifically, we oppose any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or placing U.S. troops under U.N. command.

If social welfare and strong regulation are "attractive," picking on the LP for U.N. related items seems... irrelevent at best. Libertarians won't be elected in a bubble, overnight turning the States into some anarcho-techno-wasteland/utopia. The Libertarian party believes in limited government, not anarchy. Opposition parties will still be around to make sure there's DOT to put up speed limit signs on the roads.

You mean to capitalize the L in Libertarian.

You sound like a Libertarian; congratulations. Vote Badnarik tomorrow. He supports you point of view.

Libertarians don't want the US military to be GloboCop.

The preview button is right there, but I just choose not to use it =). Also, I need to remember to use the br tags, unlike LJ.

*some Scandinavian countries

Libertarian Party

Exactly. I heard a good analogy (which I'm sure will be debunked as "This election won't save your life", although it could if the wars continue).

It goes:
"You are in prison on death row and you get to vote on what happens to you. The three choices are, lethal injection, electric chair, and being set free. Now polls are conducted, and no matter what you vote, you hve a 48% chance of being shocked to death, a 48% chance of being injected with a lethal poison, and only a 4% chance of being set free.

Which would you vote for?"

Michael Badnarik and more specifically, the Libertarian party, are who will set you free.

Vote to make a difference. Vote Badnarik and also any state reps/senators that are Libertarian.

Chris

PS -- Full credit for the story goes to my state LP chair, Vincent Mouser.

Exactly. I heard a good analogy (which I'm sure will be debunked as "This election won't save your life", although it could if the wars continue).

It goes:
"You are in prison on death row and you get to vote on what happens to you. The three choices are, lethal injection, electric chair, and being set free. Now polls are conducted, and no matter what you vote, you hve a 48% chance of being shocked to death, a 48% chance of being injected with a lethal poison, and only a 4% chance of being set free.

Which would you vote for?"

Michael Badnarik and more specifically, the Libertarian party, are who will set you free.

Vote to make a difference. Vote Badnarik and also any state reps/senators that are Libertarian.

Chris

PS -- Full credit for the story goes to my state LP chair, Vincent Mouser.

Exactly. I heard a good analogy (which I'm sure will be debunked as "This election won't save your life", although it could if the wars continue).

It goes:
"You are in prison on death row and you get to vote on what happens to you. The three choices are, lethal injection, electric chair, and being set free. Now polls are conducted, and no matter what you vote, you hve a 48% chance of being shocked to death, a 48% chance of being injected with a lethal poison, and only a 4% chance of being set free.

Which would you vote for?"

Michael Badnarik and more specifically, the Libertarian party, are who will set you free.

Vote to make a difference. Vote Badnarik and also any state reps/senators that are Libertarian.

Chris

PS -- Full credit for the story goes to my state LP chair, Vincent Mouser.

Abuse of rights, law, and tax dollars. This is why you should vote Libertarian.

Take the Advocates.org "World's Smallest Political Quiz" to find out what party you belong in based on real issues. According to them, "Take the Quiz now and find out where you fit on the political map!"

It is my belief that everyone is a Libertarian, but they they just don't know it.

Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. Send a message to Washington and don't choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

the libertarian web site beats the two major party sites which actually has to watch what they say. Badnarik even says that he strongly supports the second amendment; we all know george 'double-yah' bush would love to say something like that, but knows he will get his ass chewed for that. And thats why Badnarik is cool... http://www.lp.org/

...so that I can't read it.

Seriously. Yahoo's web filter blocks EFF.org. And a slate of others that it shouldn't block(such as the Libertarian Party's website).

In a Libertarian world the politicians don't have the sort of power politicians have today. There is no point in trying to buy a politician in a Libertarian world because he has no authority to promote legislation to benefit a group. That's one of the basic points of Libertarianism.

The Bush administration is nothing like a Libertarian government. A Libertarian government would not have the power to be able to pass legislation that benefits companies. What you have described is not Libertarianism.

Anyone who would like to learn what Libertarianism actually is should visit the Libertarian Party's web site.

Neither party

I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.

There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:

Mike Badnarik - Libertarian

David Cobb - Green

Ralph Nader - Independent

Mike Peroutka - Constitution

In addition, Roger Calero, the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.

Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:

(from ballot-access.org):

Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.

Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.

Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


More details can be found at ballot-access.org

And a list of political parties in the United States is available as well.

seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.

The Libertarian Party is.

Neither party

I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.

There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:

Mike Badnarik - Libertarian

David Cobb - Green

Ralph Nader - Independent

Mike Peroutka - Constitution

In addition, Roger Calero, the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.

Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:

(from ballot-access.org):

Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.

Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.

Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


More details can be found at ballot-access.org

And a list of political parties in the United States is available as well.

seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.

The Libertarian Party is.

No person acting under color of law shall . . . deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/05/153124. php

Blackwell's solution to the pesky problem of people wanting to vote is to institute the most draconian state election laws possible. It makes me wonder if it's possible to have a truely fair election here in my home state.

Happily planning to vote for Badnarik, the Libertarian... I mean, the "OTHER PARTY" candidate. ;)

Assuming, of course, that my polling place hasn't changed, I can find the new one if it has, and that I can get there before it closes.

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0402/ohio_lawsuit.html

The LP has nearly 600 locally elected officials. Click on the link for a full list.

1. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

1. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

In the off-year election of 2003, 46 Libertarians were elected to local office -- and nearly half of those victories came in higher-level races such as city and county council. The LP now has over 600 officeholders, which is more than all other third parties combined.

Currently the party is gearing up for the November 2004 elections, in which we expect to field more than 1,000 candidates for federal, state and local office.

In the off-year election of 2003, 46 Libertarians were elected to local office -- and nearly half of those victories came in higher-level races such as city and county council. The LP now has over 600 officeholders, which is more than all other third parties combined.

Currently the party is gearing up for the November 2004 elections, in which we expect to field more than 1,000 candidates for federal, state and local office.

People need to stop insisting that there's no variety within the major parties and that the only way to get "alternative voices" is through someone who's officially designated as part of a third party. That's just not true at all. People should stop complaining about the system and understand that most viewpoints can be expressed well from within it.

As Davy Crockett said, any government that is powerful enough to give you what you want, is powerful enough to take away what you have. This is why I vote Libertarian. Keep the government small, so it doesn't have enough power to mess up the lives of everyone it touches. Let power return to the people by cutting government's role in regulating our lives, and removing the government protections that corporations have. (Protections like the right to pollute, so long as they get approval to do so from the EPA; and no liability for executives when the company harms people while under their guidance).

Look at the Bill of Rights sometime. It doesn't say "the people have the right to.."; it says things like "Congress shall make no law...". The Constitution of the United States was designed to be a limit on the power of the federal government; not an enumeration of the rights you have. The current U.S. government is way out of control, because it's slipped its Constitutional chains, and is trampling all over the limits that are supposed to be placed on it.

How about we cut the size of the federal government, and all its associated wasteful and slow bureaucracy, and slash taxes for everyone at the federal level? Devolve healthcare, education, road construction, and more, down to the state level. This would give everyone more say in how their money is spent (because your local representative is much more accessible than your rep in Washington D.C.); and would provide an opportunity for different states to try different methods of administrating costs and managing overhead -- making solutions more customized to local needs and giving fertile ground for the best ideas to grow and flourish.

This is the original idea behind having multiple states instead of a massive federal bureaucracy that has too many layers and too many factions to be efficient.

This would give *everyone* more money, and more say in how it's spent. We know this works, because it's the way our country was run until the last few decades. Just compare the prosperous 1950s (where the average tax burden was only about %12 of income); or pre-1913 America (no income tax); to the ruinous %40-50 tax burden of today (once you factor in the hidden costs of tax compliance, taxes during production, and accounting overhead) which requires both parents to work and leaves the children to the not-so-tender mercies of the public school system.

So far, the only party that supports this is the Libertarians [lp.org]. Listen to Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] speak sometime, like on this radio interview.

Does it start with an "L"?

> but to move government out of the realm of marriage

Ever considered the Libertarian Party? :)

That phrase, "move government out of the realm of ", needs to be used so much more often than it is! It's too bad, IMO, the answers to problems these days always seem to be more government intervention, regulation, and laws.

Please use the coralized links for the movies and save these guys some bandwidth.)

Stills from Steve Kubby's site.
Video and back story
"Libertarian's Ad Takes Cues From 'South Park'" (The Sacramento Bee - October 30, 1998)
"Two Libertarians' 'animated' work for liberty"(LP News May 1999)

Coralized links to the movies:
faster than a modem
modem