Slashdot Mirror

You threw your vote away by not playing by the rules of our 2-party society. Maybe you are rebelling against a flawed system, but by your choice to vote 3rd party the system effectively excluded you from participating in democracy.

P.S. I was registered as LP for many years. So I'm not really judging you quite as harshly as I sounded.

https://www.lp.org/issues/taxe...

The Libertarian Party in the United States certainly supports corporations. Quoting from their platform:

2.7 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association.

Libertarians believe very strongly in property rights and that one of government's most important functions is to preserve property rights:

https://www.lp.org/platform/

The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected..

I don't know of any Libertarian that would consider a tractor, whole or in part, that would belong to John Deere after a farmer has voluntarily paid for it.

The premise: Someone is (figuratively, but only barely) pointing a loaded gun at your face and demanding you give them a list of your associates.

Furthermore, the premise is that this is how the law is and how it will/should say. By that, I mean that 1) You always vote against the only people who run on a platform of upholding the plain meaning and spirit of the 4th amendment, and 2) you are ok with the social networking site's database still having a list of your associates. You just don't want that list to be accessible through your user-agent. If the guy with the gun asks the company directly without involving you or your phone, you don't have a problem (or at least not such a problem, that you would stop using that website or stop voting for Republicrats).

And you want a third party (social networking websites) to Do Something, such that the guy pointing a gun at your face, doesn't get whatever he wants.

I think this is an absurd position and I can't respect it .. or you. Take some responsibility; quit trying to get someone else (who has no stake in the situation) to fix it for you. At a minumum, at least put your votes where your mouth is, both in the booth and with your wallet. Stop using Facebook, and stop voting for people like Trump/Clinton. Currently, you are always acting like your privacy is worthless, and you are always helping (even when the gun isn't in your face) the guy with the gun. You fucking hypocrite. Why would anyone help you? You are the enemy that you're complaining about, asshole!

What happened to the party of small government and suspicion of government interfering with people's personal lives?

They are still around. Going to vote for them, finally? Or going to vote against them again?

The general libertarian ideal is that marriage not be recognized by the government at all. The practical policy decision is that until marriage laws can be removed from the books, they should be applied to all consenting adults equally. This is what is codified in the Libertarian Party platform: https://www.lp.org/platform

You're joking, right? We routinely see front page articles telling us that we should all own more guns. We routinely see discussions dominated by people shouting fact-free nonsense about abortion. We often see front page articles about how evil public schools are.

oddly enough the libertarian party supports gun ownership and gun rights.

I don't know the people you know but some links for references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://mises.org/library/libe...

https://www.lp.org/issues/envi...

If your congressman runs unopposed, contact the Libertarian party. http://www.lp.org/

They will get you on the ballot and you an oppose him. Will you win? Maybe, maybe not.

If you happen to win, well then you can effect change. If not, you can at least say you tried. ;)

I had the same issue, my congressman ran unopposed. I contacted the LP party and ran against him.

Garnered 4% of the vote and I did not do any campaigning. Next time I run, Ill actually run a campaign and put up all the signs.

Bernie Sanders is a self described socialist. It means the same as in Europe. Political parties in Europe use the world socialist.

Your claim about Libertarian is nonsense. Perhaps you are too busy. You might want to slow down long enough to at least get some of the facts straight.

2.7 Labor Markets

Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....

Is There a Libertarian Case for Organized Labor?

Uh, one of the tenets of the Libertarian platform is "No force or fraud." This is certainly fraud, and therefore a suitable target of government force.

So why does he get so much credit on slashdot? Is this the new libertarian conservative shithole of the internet?

Nice throwaway slam - Want to borrow a crowbar to get that foot out of your mouth?

Because, for the most part, Libertarians hate Reagan. Despite how you might prefer to demonize Libertarians, laissez faire doesn't mean "subsidize the rich".

The actual libertarians call themselves either anarchists or communists.

Err, no. They call themselves libertarians.

The 'libertarians' in the US are conservatives.

Great job ignoring literally everything I said in my previous comment. Conservatives, approximately equating Republicans, are not really libertarians, as is evidenced (do I really have to say this all again?) in, for instance, their pro-military-intervention stance, and support of spying on citizens.

Except no major political group actually acts on what you said (and I'm counting the Libertarian left in' major' there). Why fuss about the size of government if that argument leads to cutting only the parts of government that can't directly come and shoot you?

The "Libertarian left" is an obvious counterexample to your above assertion. Among other things, they advocate substantial decrease in the US military and an end to US military adventurism. It doesn't make sense to me how people can just assert things without even looking at what actually is happening.

They just want to eliminate paroles, abolish insanity and diminished capacity pleas, and trial kids as adults.
While privatizing prisons.

How did you put that?

NOT LIBERTARIAN to allow private organizations COMPLETE CONTROL of the freedom of an individual, whether that individual is a child or not.

Well shit... You better start informing those people that they are not real Scotsmen.

http://www.lp.org/the-libertar...

3. Get Tough on Real Crime

In part because of the diversion of resources to fight victimless crime (see above), real criminals increasingly escape punishment. As Figure 2. shows, the cost a criminal can expect to pay for committing a crime has declined for 20 years, while crime rates have steadily increased.

The Libertarian Party believes that individuals should be held responsible for their actions. This includes swift and certain punishment for those guilty of committing violence or fraud against others.

But today, criminal sentences seldom mean what they say. On average, a criminal will serve only 37% of any sentence imposed. As a result, 51% of all violent offenders are released from jail after serving two years or less, and 76% were released after serving four years or less.

When a Judge imposes a sentence, the criminal should serve that sentence. Parole and other forms of early release should be severely restricted. Virtually every study on the subject has shown that parolees have a high recidivism rate. For example, one 1987 study found that 69% of parolees were rearrested within six years of their release.

One deeply disturbing trend is the increasing tendency to excuse individuals from responsibility for the crimes they commit. From the "Twinkie defense" to the Menendez and Bobbitt trials, juries have been too willing to excuse a defendant's guilt. Insanity and diminished capacity defenses should be abolished or severely restricted. The insanity defense can be replaced by a plea of "guilty but mentally ill," which would enable the offender to receive medical help, but would still require him to serve the appropriate sentence for his crime. The use of alcohol or drugs should never constitute an excuse for criminal conduct.

The juvenile justice system should be radically revised to ensure that juveniles are held fully accountable for the crimes they commit. Juveniles commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. From 1982-1991, the number of juveniles arrested for murder or manslaughter increased by 93%. In 1990, individuals under the age of 21 were responsible for one-third of all murders. Yet, only 5% of violent juvenile offenders are tried as adults. In some states a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to serve a term past the age of 25 -- no matter how serious the offense. Juveniles who commit adult crimes should be tried as adults and pay adult penalties.

While scrapping welfare cause poor breed on it like rats. Eating, fucking and committing crimes all day.

5. Address the Root Causes of Crime

The root causes of crime are no mystery. As Peter Greenwood, a criminal justice expert with the RAND Corporation explains, "We know the risk factors for violence and what creates it. Kids being born into poverty, to parents who can't take care of them." It is our current social welfare system that has created the risk factors that breed crime.

Nearly all social scientists agree that there is a direct link between out-of-wedlock births and social problems such as crime and drug abuse. For example, one study found that children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. Another study found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single-parent households were tw

http://www.lp.org/platform section 2.7
"...an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain."

... I've had libertarians on here say that fire services should be provided by the private sector and anyone who can't afford to pay should spend what little free time they have after working 80 hours a week just to feed their kids as a volunteer fireman.

So your view on libertarians is based on slashdot posts?

Libertarians actually running for office say things like this about fire services:
"I advocate consolidation of local fire departments in the county, into a single well coordinated organization to address the growing need for larger response teams and more specialized training. This can be done most efficiently in a county run Fire Department modeled after the combined Fire Authority created for Brighton City, Genoa Township and Brighton Township."
http://www.lp.org/candidates/l...

The above is just the first thing I found while googling. I know nothing else about this candidate.

Yes, good ol' Libertarian "The government shouldn't violate my right to violate others rights!"

I assume you made that up to sound clever.

From the very first part of their faq: http://www.lp.org/faq "Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another." I'm pretty sure that the "do no harm to another" phrase applies here.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Sure. Let's try to figure out a party that can provide a consensus between people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits. This program should be funded through the existing welfare budget, reductions in military spending and corporate subsidies, and a fair, progressive income tax." and people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution." Good luck with that....

There are issues on which the Greens and Libertarians can find consensus; both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose a strike on Syria and both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose government spying. Some other issues, not so much....

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Sure. Let's try to figure out a party that can provide a consensus between people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits. This program should be funded through the existing welfare budget, reductions in military spending and corporate subsidies, and a fair, progressive income tax." and people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution." Good luck with that....

There are issues on which the Greens and Libertarians can find consensus; both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose a strike on Syria and both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose government spying. Some other issues, not so much....

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Sure. Let's try to figure out a party that can provide a consensus between people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits. This program should be funded through the existing welfare budget, reductions in military spending and corporate subsidies, and a fair, progressive income tax." and people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution." Good luck with that....

There are issues on which the Greens and Libertarians can find consensus; both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose a strike on Syria and both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose government spying. Some other issues, not so much....

Limited to making sure teh gays can't get married

Except that the Libertarian Party supports gay marriage, and believes in marriage equality.

pushing the LORD GOD OF CHRISTMAS AND ALL LIGHT AND ATHEISTS ARE MEAN doctrine on everyone.

Except that many Libertarians are atheists, and Ayn Rand was an avowed and outspoken atheist.

Sorry about the caps

Maybe next time, before you start shouting, you should check to see if what you are about to shout has any connection to the truth.

The Libertarian Party says..

"Full repeal of FISA, the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and massive downsizing of federal spy agencies is the only answer," said [Geoffrey J. Neale, chair of the Libertarian Party]. "Not maybe. Not later. Now. This will stop the incremental yet rapid decline of our privacy and civil liberties, put a check on government power, and help to ensure that every American is afforded due process and justice if charged with a crime."

You could vote Libertarian Party...

The Libertarian Party rejects President Bush's claims that the "Protect America Act" needs to be made permanent, citing that the bill fails to live up to its name and only limits American civil liberties. The controversial Act that was passed by Congress last August altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and legalized the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program, which many civil liberties organizations had strongly protested. "Every American should be fundamentally opposed to the 'Protect America Act,'" says Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "Despite its catchy name, the Act does nothing of the sort."

(source)

What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one.

No, that's a definition of some kind of democracy. What the Libertarian Party wants is listed right in the title of it's homepage: "Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government".

You can't seriously argue that when you can't even legally smoke pot Libertarians have what they are "really" asking for.

http://www.lp.org/platform

I want a minimalist government that focuses mostly on preserving and the rights of our constitution while at the same time working to wean us off big government, give us back freedoms that were taken from us, and fix our patent and copyright systems.

Can you do that?

They could. But that would be pointless since it would just duplicate the Libertarian Party. If you look at the Justice Party's website, you will see that they currently advocate pretty much the complete opposite of what you suggest.

Well it is true that the US Libertarian Party was founded due to Nixon's announcement of wage and price controls and leaving the gold standard.

How do you vote if you are pro gun and pro gay rights?

Libertarian, obviously: "Americans Moving in a Libertarian Direction: More Back Gun Rights, Gay Marriage"

Are you sure that the person you vote for will vote for a president who has the same ideas?

Yes. "Libertarian Gary Johnson’s Bold and Consistent Stand on Gay Marriage" (and the firearms/weapons rights issue we can take for granted). It's amusing that the Libertarian candidate has a stronger endorsement of gay rights than the Democratic candidate (ostensibly being the party everyone thinks of as pro-gay rights).

Does the party you vote for give you that option?

Yes. It's their raison d'etre. It would be a breach of the basic ideology of the party to do otherwise.

Does that party have any chance of ever being part of a government?

Not unless we change our voting system or one of the two major parties collapses. It's a consequence of Duverger's law.

In Europe there are people from the Pirate Party who have a seat in governments. There are people from all over the place representing the people.

I applaud that. Fortunately, you don't have to deal with the inevitable consequence of our first past the post voting system. In that case, the Pirate Party would be almost completely locked out of government until they absorbed a sizable portion of a now-defunct major party. That would inevitably dilute the ideology of the Pirate Party and probably lead to some ironic legislator votes (eg. compromising on increased copyright enforcement).

Heh, also, I presume there are no "guns, gays, recreational drugs, and limited government" parties anywhere in Europe (and yes, the guns part is required when comparing).

How do you vote if you are pro gun and pro gay rights?

Libertarian, obviously: "Americans Moving in a Libertarian Direction: More Back Gun Rights, Gay Marriage"

Are you sure that the person you vote for will vote for a president who has the same ideas?

Yes. "Libertarian Gary Johnson’s Bold and Consistent Stand on Gay Marriage" (and the firearms/weapons rights issue we can take for granted). It's amusing that the Libertarian candidate has a stronger endorsement of gay rights than the Democratic candidate (ostensibly being the party everyone thinks of as pro-gay rights).

Does the party you vote for give you that option?

Yes. It's their raison d'etre. It would be a breach of the basic ideology of the party to do otherwise.

Does that party have any chance of ever being part of a government?

Not unless we change our voting system or one of the two major parties collapses. It's a consequence of Duverger's law.

In Europe there are people from the Pirate Party who have a seat in governments. There are people from all over the place representing the people.

I applaud that. Fortunately, you don't have to deal with the inevitable consequence of our first past the post voting system. In that case, the Pirate Party would be almost completely locked out of government until they absorbed a sizable portion of a now-defunct major party. That would inevitably dilute the ideology of the Pirate Party and probably lead to some ironic legislator votes (eg. compromising on increased copyright enforcement).

Heh, also, I presume there are no "guns, gays, recreational drugs, and limited government" parties anywhere in Europe (and yes, the guns part is required when comparing).

Why can't we infuse a little common since into the law.

Because the political party that agrees with you gets less than 1% of the vote. That is not much of a mandate.

What I did say is that there is little value in what the Tea Party stands for when you pin them down to specifics, and I stand by that.

The Tea Party articulated its positions in the Contract from America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_from_America

The Libertarian Party has specific, clearly articulated positions in its party platform on http://www.lp.org/

Compare those with the democratic party platform, which is quite a bit more vague: http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Also, nowhere do I say that the libertarian movement is irrelevant. You might have read into my calling the Libertarian party inconsequential. If you think they aren't, count their successes at swaying ideology or just winning major elections.

You keep playing word games, sometimes talking about the "libertarian movement" (whatever that may be), then whether the "Libertarian party" wins elections.

Most people with libertarian views don't identify as "libertarians" or vote libertarian, just like most "atheists" don't identify as such or go to atheist meetings and most homosexuals also didn't use to identify as "homosexuals" and didn't use to go to gay hangouts. People stigmatize the names of their political opponents and eventually people react by changing names.

Many people who hold libertarian beliefs vote Republican, represented by "the Enterprisers". For better or worse, they tend to be well-informed, well-educated rich white males, with a strong interest in macroeconomics. There's a smaller group of libertarian-leaning voters voting Democrat, mostly because they dislike social conservatism even more than progressive economics.

And these voters have an impact. They prevent social conservatives and progressives from succeeding as presidential candidates in both parties. And they have successfully pushed issues such as drug legalization, gay marriage, economic liberalization and free trade, etc. And as libertarian ideas succeed, they just get co-opted by the two major parties who pretend they really always stood for these ideas in the first place, leaving libertarian groups with the next batch of controversial ideas to push.

Sorry, but your analysis of libertarianism and its demographics are just out of touch with reality. The "Libertarian party" is inconsequential, but libertarian-leaning voters are a major political force in the US today.

Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like

Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.

It's not a question of what a libertarian paradise should look like, it's what in practice it would look like. Libertarians are free to believe that if government disappeared everything would be perfect, it just doesn't convince the rest of us.

Ah, I see your folly - you've somehow confused the term "Libertarian" with "Anarchist."

Contrary to what you've convinced yourself, they are not confluent philosophies. Please do us all a favor and banish your ignorance, rather than comment on matters you obviously know little to nothing about.

Is there even such a thing as libeterianism?

I assume you meant "libertarianism." If so, gee, if only there were easily accessible resources to answer these questions for you!

Since you're obviously too lazy to have found these links on your own already, I'll boil it down here for you: libertarianism, in a nutshell, advocates for a high degree of individual freedom & personal responsibility, paired with minimal government interference in the lives & affairs of its citizens, minimal taxes, and minimal regulation.

What's funny is that you profess complete ignorance of "what libertarianism is" in one breath, and then argue in the next breath that Belize must be a libertarian's wet dream. If you don't know what libertarianism is, how could you possible know whether or not Belize's system of government is anything remotely resembling what libertarians advocate or desire?

Is there even such a thing as libeterianism?

I assume you meant "libertarianism." If so, gee, if only there were easily accessible resources to answer these questions for you!

Since you're obviously too lazy to have found these links on your own already, I'll boil it down here for you: libertarianism, in a nutshell, advocates for a high degree of individual freedom & personal responsibility, paired with minimal government interference in the lives & affairs of its citizens, minimal taxes, and minimal regulation.

What's funny is that you profess complete ignorance of "what libertarianism is" in one breath, and then argue in the next breath that Belize must be a libertarian's wet dream. If you don't know what libertarianism is, how could you possible know whether or not Belize's system of government is anything remotely resembling what libertarians advocate or desire?

Why don't you quote for me the relevant sections of the Libertarian Party Platform that specifically state that they want a "powerless government" that "doesn't tax" and "doesn't regulate"? Because having looked at their official statements, I see nothing suggesting that that's their explicit goal. (Hint: Minimizing regulation, reducing taxes, and reducing regulation and market interference does not mean "eliminating" those things.)

Income taxes are not the only taxes collected by governments. National defense, courts, police forces - all of these are perfectly allowable under the libertarian platform, and all of these must be funded through some government revenues, i.e. taxes.

Anarcho-capitalism is NOT libertarianism. They're equivalent in the same way that modern American "liberalism" is equivalent to Marxist Communism.

I understand your post, however, they do have mayors. Just not very much any higher than that.

http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

This will continue to get worse no matter which party is in charge

You sound like someone who doesn't realize that there are other parties to choose from then the republicrats.

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.gp.org/

http://www.aipca.org/

Just 3 off the top of my head that are actively working against the interests of the republicrats. Only *YOU* can stop voting for the same old crap, and choose something different.

The popular term "third party" (used to refer to all U.S. parties other than Rems and Dems) is unfair - only one can be in third place. Libertarian Gary Johnson is the candidate of the third largest party. Greens and other commies / theocrats are 4th, 5th, etc. They don't get the bronze medal - they didn't earn it!

The Libertarian Party candidate got 2.6x the Constitution Party votes and 3.3x the Green Party votes in the last POTUS election. In 2012, LP has ballot access in 48 states plus DC (and still fighting for the others). GP could only get its act together in ~37 states, CP in ~26.

About 15-20% of USA'ians poll as libertarian (fiscally conservative, socially liberal), even though most vote for a lesser evil (or don't vote at all). Small-l libertarians are gaining leverage in the Republican Party, which greens don't have with the Dems. Just compare Ron Paul's 2008 fundraising numbers to those of Dennis Kucinich! Gary Johnson is presently polling third, and his votes could really grow if the Romney campaign implodes.

--libman

Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.

Gary Johnson was already governor of New Mexico for two terms.

Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.

Maybe that would be a good thing. Gary Johnson vetoed more bills in his 2 terms as governor than all other governors combined. We don't need tens of thousands of pages of new laws every year.

If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.

The Libertarian Party has done exactly that: http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed

No, it doesn't mean that at all. In Michigan, if the top of the ticket gets 5% or more, then they get major party status, which means they don't need to waste money trying to get on the ballot the next time around. It helps to build momentum in that you're not wasting money, time & energy on something you had to do previously.

voice=River Song "Spoilers" /voice

You can verify the lp.com cert by going to https://lp.org/ though it is only valid for www.lp.org The website does a redirect from https to http for www.lp.org. They don't have a redirect for https://lp.org/ but do for http://lp.org/

Yeah, I checked the links. Pretty scary that the only one that has a correct SSL cert, doesn't actually use it. And yet, we are supposed to trust the leadership of these parties with even more technical issues, like running a government.

voice=River Song "Spoilers" /voice

You can verify the lp.com cert by going to https://lp.org/ though it is only valid for www.lp.org The website does a redirect from https to http for www.lp.org. They don't have a redirect for https://lp.org/ but do for http://lp.org/

Yeah, I checked the links. Pretty scary that the only one that has a correct SSL cert, doesn't actually use it. And yet, we are supposed to trust the leadership of these parties with even more technical issues, like running a government.

voice=River Song "Spoilers" /voice

You can verify the lp.com cert by going to https://lp.org/ though it is only valid for www.lp.org The website does a redirect from https to http for www.lp.org. They don't have a redirect for https://lp.org/ but do for http://lp.org/

Yeah, I checked the links. Pretty scary that the only one that has a correct SSL cert, doesn't actually use it. And yet, we are supposed to trust the leadership of these parties with even more technical issues, like running a government.

Anyone else feel we are getting to the point where that needs to happen?

It looks like the answer to your question is no. I just went to four parties' websites, and none of them had any sort of inline gpg signature on the page. That kind of tech is unusual on the web, though, so let's look at one highly-broken but widely ubiquitous way for websites to have at least some attestation of who they are: https.

For some amazing adventures in mismatched certs, 404s(!), other brokenness, and even the CA "Comodo" raising its ugly head (did you think they had gone out of business?), try loading (shown in sorted order):
https://www.democrats.org/
https://www.gop.com/
https://www.gp.org/
https://www.lp.org/
You have to see it all to believe it. The one which "works" (no spoilers) still manages to be self-defeating and useless for identity-checking.

More than (I even included the biggest two third parties!) 99 of voters spoke: No, we're not at the point where any voter gives a damn if a party's site says who it is.

I'm not saying it's you personally, but there are a lot of people of that generation who are all for cutting government services for things they either received their benefit for or keep the services for things they will get benefit for, but cut it for everyone else after.

It's not all of us militating for this - only a select subset. Figure out what to do with those folks and you wouldn't have the problems you talk about. God knows the rest of us have tried...

Like these guys?

It's hard to be a viable canidate when you have to fight an uphill battle just to get on the ballot, and then good luck getting any major media coverage. Just look at how the media treats Crazy Uncle Ron.

If the red-colored Republicrats were serious about repealing Romney/Obama-care, Ron Paul has the perfect credentials. It's almost as though the red-colored Republicrats are trying to lose. And just think of all that delicious money medical insurance companies will make with their 10% overhead cap on 100% of the country. Everybody who's been arguing that insurance premiums will come down because of the bigger risk pool is right in theory. I'm not holding my breath for it to actually happen, though. My bet is that magically, the cost of medical care will somehow go through the roof, and combined with some Hollywood accounting, insurance premiums are going to keep on rising at about the same pace while wrecking the budgets of anyone who isn't a single mother with 5 kids and won't qualify for assistance. Romney/Obama-care is just a "what could possibly go wrong" waiting to happen when it kicks all the way in.

Now where did I leave my tinfoil hat?

Apparently the Libertarian Party had ballot access in almost every state in 2008, and I assume the same will be true this year.

http://www.lp.org/ballot-access

Libertarians and monarchists, however, are pretty darn close.

The latter think they should be ruled by a king. The former think they should be the king that rules.

That doesn't even make a damn bit of sense. Libertarians are the last folks who would want a king, even if they were appointed to the post. Let's do a quick google... ah, here's the Libertarian party platform:

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.

Hard to reconcile that philosophy with a desire to be authoritarian rulers. In fact, monarchists and libertarians are almost entirely polar opposites, although I suppose that also depends on the nature of the monarch. I guess you could posit a benign monarch that doesn't interfere in anyone's life in any way. Not a great deal of likelihood in that, but if you are going to have a purely theoretical discussion I suppose it is something you could propose...

"We need a 3rd entity (which I believe must come out of a combination of the Tea Party & OWS movements which share more in common with each other then they do with either the Dems/Repubs), an entity willing to raise taxes, eliminate tax loopholes, maintain liberty, and make painful cuts."

Yes, some sort of third party that stands against corporate corruption, are staunch fiscal conservatives, who want to end involvement in foreign wars, who want to stop throwing people in jail for smoking pot, and who want social conservatives to leave us the hell alone and let us live our lives as we choose.

Now where could we find a party like that?