Slashdot Mirror
Politics: Harry, The Disastrous & The Unpalatable
nd writes: "Harry Browne has agreed to a roundtable discussion with everyone in a Kuro5hin Feature. He'll be responding to messages himself under his own account." It's been going on for a few days now, and is an amazing look at the future of political coverage. Reflecting a sentiment I hope is accurate, Jim Madison writes: "Despite the apathy, I think slashdot's members are actually quite well-informed, politically speaking. Our friends, however, are not. According to this article, 25% of citizens 18-24 cannot name both major party presidential candidates and 70% cannot name their running mates. Wow. This discussion at Quorum.org (disclaimer: a site I co-founded) questions whether online forums (like this one) can help make politics more accessible or whether it's going to take structural change in Washington before it gets any better. What's the point of the $200 mm spent on advertising if they can't even get
unaided brand recall?" For whose pathologically opposed to the letter "W," CaptainZ asserts that "This guy [Jamin Raskin] over at MSN has a pretty good article about how Nader and Gore can both 'win.'" Finally, wallstrum writes with word of yet another worthy candidate (still, I'm more of a Quimby man).
Looks a lot like "Information wants to be free" to me.. :)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I live in a swing state (Michigan) and I intend to vote for Nader. I would love to read the headlines: "Bush wins, Nader blamed". That would make my day.
If Gore really wanted my vote, then he'd answer concerns about corporate welfare and corruption, as well as the other unheard issues that Nader wants to solve. Instead, Gore has done his best to dodge those issues, re-invent his record, and ignore Nader. Gore has demonstrated that he will continue to represent the very worst that I hate about elections: scumming votes from the most impressionable voters through TV ads funded by massive soft money contributions. Gore's actions and his record have failed to convince me that he will be significantly better than Bush.
How long must I vote for the second-worst candidate in exchange for nothing? Four years? Eight? Twelve? How many more times will I be betrayed by the Democrats? It's time to send a "tough love" message to the Democrats who are so busy scraping votes from potential Republicans that they forgot that there's a job to do and work to be done.
Why vote for the lesser of evils, when you can vote for the greatest evil Cthuluh.
No more years! No more years!
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
25% of citizens 18-24 cannot name both major party presidential candidates and 70% cannot name their running mates
and this is why we have an electoral college...
what elections? there's elections?
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
After discovering that both Gore and Bush were idiots who I could not vote for I turned my attention to third parties. Why would I care about their running mates, very few vice presidents do anything useful. Once in a while a swing vote in the senate, and it has happened that the president died in office. Both are rare enough not to affect my vote.
My brother tells me that Bush's running mate is better, but I'm not sure why. I've also heard the theory that being jewish, Gore's running mate might provoke trouble in the middle east, something we don't need.
BTW, the last initials are C. and L, but I don't recall which is which.
Unfortunatly all this ignores the more important elections: state and local. There is more then one seat that I need to vote on. I just wish I knew who to vote for.
It's sort of a viscious cycle, really.
As one of my friends put it: Why do politicians pander and spin? Because we (as a nation) are easily pandered to and spun about. Why do the preach fuzzy partizan ideologies? Because that's the level of dialogue we're at.
The solution: either DON'T VOTE (if you're not informed) or but in the effort necessary to get informed. Let's define "informed" minimaly: as having spent more than 3-6 hours ACTIVELY seeking out information about a candidates history, funding, and positions. From sources other than their campaign (or their opponent's campaign, thank you). And REALLY informed would be if you'd actually spent some time studying aspects of policy, so that you could intelligently evaluate statements like "A free market always gives the best results," or "We need more funding for education" or "By floating this bond over a longer time period, we can afford this".
But most of us don't. We make our votes on vague feelings and sometimes, passion for an ideology. The politicians know this. That's why they started doing things the way they're done. That's why apathy has increased....
Break the cycle?
Tweet, tweet.
Well, everyone except Dubya. We hope.
I have some cousins that not only couldn't name the major party candidates. They likely couldn't even tell you the capital of the state we live in.
Such ignorance unfortunately is common. Most of them could do quite well at a quiz of who are the qb's for all the NFL teams. But ask them who their senators and representative in congress are...
Don't waste your vote. Choice freedom on Nov. 7
My Weblog
I really want to go with the Libertarians, but I'm sorry, the general population is just not smart enough to govern themselves.
It works in theory, to be responsible for your own actions, but we are a COUNTRY, I see myself as a piece of the whole puzzle, I would much rather see people fighting for each other rather than for the selfishness the Libertarians preach.
"And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy
I quote from a post that said it best-
"In the States, we have a representative democracy, in which we elect representatives to protect our interests for us. (The Founding Fathers believed that the individual citizen would not have have enough time to govern and that the process would become unwieldy, so they chose to use representatives to work in the actual machinations of governance)."
Unfortunately, it doesn't work in the real world. Without being able to hold someone to their vote, you could have hundreds of Bush (or, god forbid, Buchanan) supporters in swing states claiming they were for Nader. The result is easy to see. You can do this on a scale of onesies and twosies, but probably not enough to make a big difference.
Another thing, is support for Nader a serious political blunder? The goal of some pro-Nader voters is supposedly to pull the Democratic party to the left. If the center is already leaning toward Bush because Gore is too far left, that's just shooting off your own foot. (I have an image of Nader voters as Barney Fife, who should be thankful that they only have one bullet.)
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
After seeing what Bush has done to the TNRCC (the Tex. state enviro agency, where I used to intern) over the course of his reign, I dread to see what the state of the EPA (and, more importantly, our nation's environment) would be by the end of a Shrub presidency. Bush Sr. was bad enough, but at least a Dem House counterbalanced him & managed to get things like the Clean Air Act passed (which Dubya has consistently ignored in Texas). It's already too hard to breathe in Houston as it is....
Gore really is the lesser of two evils, at least as far as energy & environmental policy is concerned. Do you really think Dubya will do squat about extinctions, pollution & global warming (at least until it's far too late)?
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
You may be able to help the Greens this way in other states too; check your local Green party and/or your local election laws.
fearbush.com
Finding God in a Dog
While Darth Vader is over 35 years old, he has the problem with being born in the United States. And I certainly don't think he's currently a naturalized citizen -- which means he can't even vote!
Poor guy. I'd vote for him otherwise.
-Chris
Organizations like NOW are saying that women should vote for Gore. Never mention that Clinton raped a woman in 1979 and got away with it. Never mind the dangerous message that women will send by voting for their successor, telling women and men throughout the country than men can commit rape and get away with it, in fact, even win the support of women afterwards.
The Democratic party was ruined after eight years of Clinton/Gore. Clinton raised record funds for the 1996 election, and when he had money left over he didn't give a dime to congressional democrats. Clinton screwed over Dick Gephardt because Gephardt might have been able to defeat Gore in the 2000 primaries.
The Democratic party has now become a duplicate of the republicans. In no way can it be said that they stick up for the rights of the poor, working people, women, gay people, black people or anybody other than big corporations. The democrats have no reason to exist, and will soon cease to exist unless they go through a structural adjustment and purge the republicans in their party. This will only happen if the democrats lose in a big way.
So, don't waste your vote on Gore, he's going down in flames. You'll feel almost as dumb as people who voted for Nixon in 1972 felt. Vote for Nader and join the growing movement for social change, and you'll be on the side that's winning.
Think about which bills get the most response on slashdot - the ones where so-and-so has introduced a bill that makes the digital equivalent of something available in a public library illegal. The CDA wasn't local. The DMCA isn't local. Napster and Scour and Gnutella aren't local issues (no server-client puns intended). Mandatory censorware in schools is becoming a federal issue.
These are issues that will be decided, unfortunately, in the Federal government. They may not affect you at the moment, but their effects will definitely be felt down the line.
Evan
Face it. Domesticly the president is mostly a figurehead. The corporations and the congress (backed by corporate contributions) set the domestic agenda. They have for years. The only place where the president holds any sway is in foreign policy.
If you look at their stands on most issues, Bush and Gore are mostly in agreement. On the really devisive issues where they differ, it doesn't matter what either one promises, it'll be the congress that decides what is done and how. The president can veto that which he doesn't like, but that leaves him with nothing. The president's choice is either compromise with congress (go back on campaign promises) or fight them, in which case he is either overridden by congress or he leaves office accomplishing nothing and not getting re-elected.
The congress after this election will be so closely split between the two parties that consensus will be hard to reach. There aren't going to be enough swing votes in congress to allow either party to accomplish much.
Net result: 4 more years of business as usual in Washington. (Money talks, the people can walk)
Anyone who thinks that either Bush or Gore are going to make sweeping changes needs to up their dosage of reality. 'Cause it ain't gonna happen.
Do you really think Dubya will do squat about extinctions, pollution & global warming (at least until it's far too late)
Do those extinct animals make anyone a profit? Then maybe they deserve to die -- they're just Looters, living off our hard work!
What has the environment done for us lately? If it was worth saving it would work harder, like all good americans do! Why should we give welfare to the "environment" when it doesn't pay taxes, all it does is take, take, take?
Don't you see, protecting the environment is for communists -- we live in a free country, and the government should stay out of it. If you want to fix the ozone layer, then do it on your own dime.
Don't tell me to stop dumping toxic chemicals into your drinking water just because you're not profitable enough to afford a filter.
Damn looters!...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Ok, Fine he didn't create the internet.
He wasn't the basis for the male character in love Story.
He didn't room with Tommy Lee Jones in college.
Maybe he did drink too much 20 years ago.
He does have something that Gore does not. Integrity. Though I can see where someone could disagree with his politics. I don't agree with him on everything, but why the vitriol? Some of you people are hostile and down right nasty. Why?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
One of my questions was answered and fairly well, including this quote: "If the two great military powers of the last 50 years couldn't keep military knowledge from spreading ... what makes anyone think that the government can devise rules and regulations that would keep non-military IP from spreading?"
This is exactly what *I* think--so do I vote for Browne? Unfortunately, I have to still say no. I want Browne to win, but I think a vote for Nader is the only way to get there. Voting for Nader gets across the message I want to get across: Campaign Finance Reform, God Dammit! After that happens, Browne has my vote.
BTW, it isn't really Harry himself answering the questions, at least he didn't answer MY question despite the fact that his nick was "Harry Browne".
PS: If the Republicans get a lock on Congress AND the Presidency, maybe the Democrats will push finance reform in 2004 hard enough that it gets in.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
check out this brilliant troll by Jamie of /. fame:
Mr. Browne,
* Does the Libertarian Party believe the government should get out of the organ-donor regulation
business? In other words, would you support a system where the rich could buy replacement organs
and the poor could make big bucks by selling their kidneys?
* Does the Libertarian Party support privatizing the roads? I've often seen this laughed off with an
"eventually," or some other non-answer. But most Americans spend over an hour a day in the car, and
one-third of major metropolitan areas are public pavement, so this seems a rather glaring omission.
If the answer is "yes," how do you see this playing out? Do you think the resulting road-licensing or toll
system will result in a more enjoyable, cheaper, or safer driving experience?
* A followup car question. Automobile manufacturers made cars for roughly six decades with safety as
a nonissue. Their rationale was that consumers didn't care about it, and they were probably right: we
died like flies and didn't care. Ralph Nader pushed the government to mandate safety features in the
1960s, and is now credited with saving approximately a million lives since that time.
Simple question. Government regulation saving a million lives: good thing, or bad thing?
* Does the Libertarian Party support deregulation of the baby market? I.e., instead of state-run
adoption, mothers should sell their babies to the highest bidder. (The Cato Institute has issued a paper
endorsing exactly this.)
* Why has Libertarianism not been adopted by any government of any importance in 6,000 years of
recorded human history?
Leading the partnership for a Slashdot-Free Slashdot, Son of Dog
Unlike 1996 when Clinton was free to alienate the left wing of the democratic party, Nader has become the voice of truth.
In 1996, Clinton very shrewdly looked at his consituency and decided to alienate the voters that were sure to vote for him in favor of winning the center vote. He did this by signing the Defense of Marriage Act, a direct slap in the face of the homosexual community, and signing the Welfare Reform Act. Both the poor and the homosexual vote where basically foregone conclusions for the democrats. The strategy worked. Immediately after the election both Clinton and Gore began complaining about the bills that Clinton signed into law only a weeks before.
Nader has become Gore's truth detector. Now the left wing of the party recognizes that Gore, although he is advocating huge increases in the size of government, wants to appeal to the center and they're abandoning him in favor of a candidate who presents a consistent view and actually has some credibility that he means what he says. Gore doesn't. I say vote Nader. At least you can trust the man. You certainly can't trust Gore.
This may be slightly off topic, but here goes. I firmly believe that one of the main problems with voter apathy and the political process is the lack of respect and loss of etiquette and civility in recent times (since WWII, probably). Look at the headline of this story for just one example:
Politics: Harry, The Disastrous & The Unpalatable
Harry? When referring to a candidate for office in the story (I realize asking all posters to do so would be too much :-), he should be referred to by the proper rules of etiquette, based on his rank or position (to which I must plead ignorance, unfortunately). At the very least, Mr. Browne would be appropriate, while Harry is not, even if he asks you to call him that.
Same with the other candidates: Governor Bush and Mr. Vice President. And the current president is to be referred to as Mr. President, not Mr. Clinton, (even a womanizing, purjurious pervert occupying the Office deserves to be shown the proper deference due his position) etc. etc. etc. And former presidents should be referred to properly as well, Governor Reagan, Ambassador Bush, etc. etc. etc., not Pres. Reagan, Mr. Reagan, Ronald Reagan, etc. etc. etc.
I realise this is idealistic, perhaps even silly, and is really only a symptom of a much larger loss of civility in society. But, some diseases really ARE best cured by addressing the symptoms, and this would be one good place to start. Perhaps the /. editorial staff could be persuaded to attempt adherence to established protocol as a strike for journalistic integrity and societal civility? :-)
Okay, but does ANYONE know who their electors are??
sulli
RTFJ.
Leir: Ok, this question is for you, C'Thulu. Given your influence over the Dreamworld, do you intend on running political adds in people's dreams?
Gore: - I'll answer that question! Of course he does! And, I'd like to remind the voters that I am a candidate that has not been asleep at the wheel for the past 10000 years!
C'Thulu: Yogsoghto hyfd rush nog..
Someone you trust is one of us.
Instead of http://www.vaderfor2000.org/ shouldn't they get http://www.notevader.org/?
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
damn! My 6 year old son can name both candidates and their running mates, although he still thinks he should vote for Bush because "Bush is famous" - I guess that's what 90% of Bush's supporters must be thinking. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Gore really is the lesser of two evils, at least as far as energy & environmental policy is concerned. Do you really think Dubya will do squat about extinctions, pollution & global warming (at least until it's far too late)?"
Why should he ? Just because bunch of wackos are making living scaring people about this crap ?
If people are ignorant of the candidates, the parties, and the process, they don't have any business voting. Voting is a civic duty that every American should participate in. But the duty of voting does not consist of going to the ballot box and just checking off whatever comes to mind, what your friend thought was a good idea, etc. Responsible citizens explore and try to understand the issues, the differences between the various candidates, and then vote in the best interests of the nation. While the founding fathers recognized that factionism would likely occur, they still regarded voting for the best candidate for office as a civic responsibility, rather than simply voting self-interest.
People who can't name vice-presidential candidates or who don't know the issues shouldn't be voting. They should be learning.
Actually, it isn't in my understanding. General and Mrs. Washington, along with Mr. Jefferson set the etiquette rules for the titles of the Federal Government. In particular, they decreed that there should only ever be one person with the title of "President" and only ever one with the title of "Vice President". Any former office holder would revert to the title of their former highest office. It is a 20th century abomination to call former presidents Mr. President. Although the Protocol Office may have changed the rules and I could be wrong.
Take a look at Miss Manner's column today (just noticed it after I sent my last message! Pretty cool, huh?)
I am a Democrat and Gore supporter in a horrifically, monstrously Republican state...Utah. I would be quite happy to vote for Nader in November if a Nader supporter in Oregon or Washington is willing to vote for Gore, to help keep either of these swing states from giving their electoral votes to Bush (which is precisely what will happen if you vote Nader...you will NOT elect Nader but you will give your state's electoral votes to Bush).
I am sympathetic to the Greens wanting to get federal support in future elections and so I would like to see Nader get 5% of the vote for this purpose. I do NOT want to see this happen if it means Bush wins the election, however. Thus, you, the Nader/Green can get your 5% and federal support AND we can both avoid seeing Bush take the Whitehouse.
Voting for Gore in Utah is a wasted vote because this state is a Republican dictatorship. I would be spitting into the wind. I would happily give Nader my vote IF a Washington or Oregon resident will trade votes...YOU vote for Gore in my stead in a state where the vote COUNTS and I will vote for Nader in a state where is ultimately doesn't matter except in trying to get Nader and the Greens 5% of the vote. You win, I win, we all win.
Any trustworthy, logical, strategic thinkers in Washington and Oregon willing to do what's good for the country and for our personal votes?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
As a result of being on the Internet, my heart has turned dark.
A decent solution would be to utilize a weighted vote by ranking each candidate in the order that you would like to seem them in office. (You are still entitled to rank as many as you feel at a rank of 0.)
So, for simplicity, say we have these candidates:
Bush, Gore, Browne, Nader, "Constitution Guy", Buchanan & Ventura (hey, I never said this was accurate!):
Using a scale of 1-10 (10 highest)
9 Ventura
8 Browne
4 Nader
2 Gore
1 Constitution Guy
0 Bush
0 Buchanan
0 "write-in"
This way, you can prioritize them as you see fit and the whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" BS is thrown out the window.
Fuzzy logic can be collectively counted from the people and the new president determined this way.
If you're worried about a person seemingly able to vote more than once, it can easily be normalized for a more relational number with respect to the US voting population.
Thanks to the speed at which we can communicate these days, doing something like this is actually feasible, as opposed to trying this 200 years ago.
-Vel
They (meaning "THE MAN", the 2-Party apologists, etc...) will have one of those arguments every 4 years if we don't START to put a stop to it RIGHT NOW. Sure, maybe Nader won't win this time, or next time, but as the articles says, he needs the votes to get on the Green Party Ballot next time.
And who knows, maybe in 12 or 16 years we'll have some real alternatives to the 2-Party, pro-corporate-welfare JERKS who take bribes to sell out their constituents.
Aren't you people tired of this crap? I know I sure as hell am.
And don't forget, Souter turned out to be one of the cooler justices in the court and HE wasn't appointed be a (sellout) Democrat.
Don't waste your vote by voting for jerks who sellout to corporate dollars. Vote for someone who ACTUALLY cares and will enact REAL change.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
I would love to see about 3-4 Libertarians make it into the US Senate. That would be just enough to start shaking things up a bit.
Props for Harry Browne, he's cool as hell. Althrough repealing the War & Emergance Power ACT is something that should be done, his method would crumble American. There has to be some method to get this country back to a constitutional goverment and away form the unlawful social empire goverment we have today (ouch, mod'ing hurt). Harry Browne is the only presidential candidate that is for returning the goverment to what made it great while keeping it modern with the rest of the world.
As far of the 18-24 years old not knowing who is who, I look at like this, they don't feel like there is anything that can be done. They get the same crap every four years. It's boring. Look at tv today, you see two guys on the media: Bush and Gore. Both are drug addicts, one is a lier the other is a whimp, they talk about boring unrelated issues to 18-24 year olds. So they say. What do 18-24 year old want? While most are busy having sex, having a social life, and working towards or for thier jobs. Not to mention it's nerdy to understand goverment and knowing the issue (of course nerds make more money and don't work as hard).
So how do you fix this "problem"? Heck you fix like every other problem in life, education. And you do that by getting people involed.
I can sit here and listen to talk radio until my ear bleed, or read stories until my ear balls hurt, but it won't make a lick of sense until the rest of American wakes up to the truth, see above.
My vote goes to Harry Browne.
MarNuke
I have voted libertarian since I was 18! As a result, most people ridicule me for throwing away my vote.
On the other hand this roundtable is exactly why they are throwing away their vote. Third parties are hands on they allow for their constituents to voice their issues and you know what those issues are.
My candidate might not win but at least I am sure that he is in politics for IDEAS and not for a career move!!!!!!
So next time someone accuses you of throwing your vote away ask that person when was the last time you voted for a guy and he accomplished anything he set out to do?
I saw this in my college's newspaper (University of Minnesota's MN DAILY) YESTERDAY.
This cartoon summarizes the posting for those that don't wish to read it!
The libertarian platform can be just as diverse as any other party. The main concept is that the individual should have the right to do anything that does not harm anyone but himself. Thus liberty. As a result that means less government interference. Some libertarians might go as far as you but then again some environmentalists think humans should be extinct to preserve the planet. The point is there is such a thing as a moderate libertarian!
What nonsense. Anyone who earns an honest living is necessarily doing something useful for his country.
Of course, what Kennedy was doing was engaging in the old scam of conflating the government with the country.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
"Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
Oh for a mod point....
but I couldn't use it here
posted already.
Tweet, tweet.
--
<sigh>
Every election year my mom goes back to her closet and digs up that old button.
Every once in a while someone gets the point.
Hey bozo, the guv'mnt IS the people. Who do you think makes up the government? Aliens? They are your neighbors, friends, poor working stiffs. Just. Like. You.
You are demonizing your neighbors. You are dehumanizing the HUMANS, FELLOW CITIZENS, MOMS, DADS, SONS, DAUGHTERS who make up the government. The government you revile as "evil" is not. It is people like you, people like me, people like the guy in the restaurant with his girlfriend laughing over a stupid joke. Real monsters.
People like YOU are the monster. People like YOU are evil. You cheer when someone blows up "the guv'mnt" (or you plant the bombs yourself) when in fact, what is being murdered are fellow citizens, people, humans, good people, silly people, smart people, happy people, sad people, etc. PEOPLE. Not robots. Not monsters. American people with all the same concerns, loves, hates, feelings as other humans (you lack these things).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The difference between Bush and Gore is so minimal that it does not make any difference which one wins the election. Both support the death penalty, both have a terrible record in health care, welfare (Lieberman collects more money from the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries than any other Senator). Both want to privatize parts of Social Security. Both will sell out to corporations at the expense of the environment and workplace safety. For all the talk about abortion, the Democratically controlled Senate approved the 2 most conservative judges on the Supreme Court (Scalia and Thomas) -- and Gore voted for both of them! Gore says he will protect the environment, but I didn't see Clinton/Gore do anything to stop logging in old-growth forests or closing the loophole that allows SUV's to pollute as much as light trucks. For all the talk about the Alaskan Arctic refuge, past history shows that Gore would sell it out in a second if given a big enough campaign contribution or if it is seen as unpopular based on some focus group poll. Here in San Francisco, state Democrats want to pave over 2 square miles of SF Bay to make room for more runways at SFO and they are even trying to re-write state law to exempt the project from environmental review -- that was the last straw for me. I'm voting Nader.
First of all, why are we importing what we've already got? The Clinton administration has, for some reason, banned domestic exploration just about everywhere. What oil we do produce here is shuttled off to other countries (from Alaska). This dependence on foriegn oil is calculated, I'm sure.
Then there's the people of the Middle East, and I get the idea that overall we're not their best friends. They tolerate us because we can beat them in an all-out war, but we are definitely not liked. They really have no reason to be nice, price-wise, do they?
Jeff
Sadly, too many Libertarians (especially online) make really bad arguments. Those Libertarians who have thought about the issues in some depth and read more than Atlas Shrugged have a much more nuanced world-view than simply believing that everyone needs to look out for himself and ignore others. Libertarianism is a political theory, not a philosophical one. It holds only that Big Government is destructive of society, not that individual shouldn't help one another. The choice is not between cooperation and selfishness. The choice is between voluntary relationships and coercive ones. Voluntary relationships promote harmony, and progress. Coercive means lead to strife and special interest wrangling. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments for libertarianism is that Big Government destroys the good will and cooperative spirit that voluntary relationships promote. There are of course many other reasons-- government programs are inefficient, threatening to civil liberties, benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, and many other bad things. But please don't dismiss Libertarianism because of the stupidity of a handful or Randroids. An idea is not responsible for the intelligence of its adherents.
Yeah? OK. Where do you live? I will come to your house and make you drink some water from a stream nearby. You WILL drink it, I will make you drink it. You will NOT die like the fish in it because it is obviously a fantasy and mere scare tactics. I am also going to make you sit in a garage and breath car exhaust, not long enough to kill you, just long enough to dick up your lungs for the rest of your life. You WILL do it because I am going to make you fit your words to your behavior. It is all fantasy, afterall.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Harry Potter for President!
sulli
RTFJ.
Maybe I hate W because he seems to be slightly dumber than some fenceposts I know. I don't trust his ability to do critical analysis when presented with conflicting expert opinion, or to coherently negotiate with other nations.
Maybe it's because in Texas the governor has very little power due to a very weird constitution, and he hasn't had any real experience, but even the little bit he's had seems to be indicitive of a man who'll cut my taxes and make the rest of the country suffer.
Maybe I don't like the idea of a Republican dominated Supreme Court.
Maybe I forgot to buy into the character assassination of Gore.
Maybe I'm just smarter than you.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
The Libertarian Party is the "party of principle." It's platform consists of slogans and bromides, all theory and no cogent policy. For instance:
- Privatize the government. Fine. Who do we sell it to, and for how much? No answer.
- Bring the military home. Fine. How does this affect our military strategy (no, Harry, no taking out contracts on Saddam Hussein.)? Will you ask congress to repudiate the treaties that require our forward deployment? How will such a unilateral action affect our ability to negotiate in the future? Do you reject the part of the Constitution that says that all treaties become the law of the land, equal to the Constitution?
- Abolish the income tax. Fine! What services, exactly, will be left? How much will they cost? In estimated dollars, what would be your budget for your first year in office? Do you really expect congress to pass such a budget? If congress won't pass the budget, would you be happy to let the government be permanently shut down? Even it means widespread riots, economic collapse, and confusion?
- Release all nonviolent federal prisoners. Fine. What constitutes a nonviolent offense? Would you keep federal laws like the DMCA? Would you release music pirates or just dope smokers, Harry? Would you intervene in states' courts to pardon dope smokers, or would you be happy if a state passed the death penalty for dope smoking?
- End social security and medicare, welfare, etc. Fine. How would you use your office to promote private charity? Is there any real evidence that privatizing charity could pick up all the slack, or at least enough to avoid chaos?
- Stop pushing other countries around. Fine. Will this bring a stop to the generations of hatred the US has created overseas? Would our borders really become safe overnight? What if terrorists still attacked us, would you retaliate using the military?
Harry Browne is unpalatable. His slogans and his party's theories are very pretty, but they have no substance. He cannot provide answers to these questions because the party is just icing, just an adolescent philosophy about what ought to be. When the party grows up, and can at least make a realistic budget, explain how it will cooperate with other parties in control of congress, and deal with treaties which are the law of the land, Browne or his successor will have a viable chance at getting into office.
However, Harry Browne can't even get on the ballot in all fifty states, let alone attempt to be the president.
(if you die of food posioning vote with your wallet and buy food eleswhere)
That is truly one of the most insightful, brilliant statements I have seen in a long time!
Congratulations on your recent magna cum laude graduation from the UofDubya.
Thanks for injecting a little amusement into my otherwise dull day!
Maybe I don't like the idea of a Republican dominated Supreme Court.
I think that I already know the answer to this one, but I'll ask first. Why do you not like that idea?
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
On most economic issues, yes, they'll end up in roughly the same place. But there are also things a President can affect unilaterally:
If you care about these issues, then there is a difference between them.
I'm not saying that people should vote based on issues like these - I'm not. I'm voting on fiscal responsibility, foreign policy, and free trade. But if all the candidates are going to do is pander, at least they ought to pretend to pander to "America's future." They don't, because they think young people don't vote, and it's an insult.
sulli
RTFJ.
I agree that a return to the civility of days past would be both helpful and refreshing. I doubt that it could ever happen, since any standard-bearer for such a movement, being human, would be nit-picked to death by our churlish media and be instantly branded a hypocrite at the first hint of imperfection. The rules have changed from the days when we the people would politely look the other way at the politically irrelevant faux pas of a great, albeit human, leader. Alas.
All your belongings are base to us.
What oil we do produce here is shuttled off to other countries (from Alaska).
It doesn't make one bit of difference whether we use our oil domestically or ship it abroad. It still results in the same effect on the world's oil supply, and hence on the price of oil in the world market.
--
Slashdot
I've been a bit puzzled by this myself. I suspect the reason is that the consensus among commentators is that Bush is a dummy and Gore is brilliant. Slashdot people tend to appreciate raw brainpower more than the average, so they can respect Gore's command of the issues. This is the way the race has been spun in most places.
At the same time, I don't think the slashdot consensus is accurate. Consider the following issues:
The Issues
Bush had the guts to put Social InSecurity on the table, which is a HUGE issue for any independent contractors who happen to be around here - if you want to be paying 12.5% tax for the rest of your life on a program that's not going to give you a dime when you retire, by all means vote for Gore. Granted, Bush doesn't go as far as I'd like, but at least I see a glimmer of hope in where he is headed.
Gore will only cut taxes for people who behave his way; Bush's tax cuts are across the board. That's why they go mainly to the top 1% of the nation; the top 1% pays more, so they get more back. If you're single and without kids, Bush's cuts will help you a darn sight more than Gore's. And I would expect that many slashdot readers are in income brackets where tax cuts would be quite attractive. And if you're not in them now, consider what might happen in a few years. Does anyone here seriously think of government as anything but a rampaging beast out to get every dime they can? The only way to tame the beast is to cut its food supply so it won't grow and envelop us all.
His statements in the debates on net censorship are appalling - sadly, Gore's record is equally bad, if not worse. Gore has a proven record of getting serious about cultural issues such as porn and XXX-rated music lyrics; I doubt Bush will push them with any degree of enthusiasm. I could be wrong, but I'd be extremely surprised if there was any advantage to free speech in voting for Gore.
There's a definite advantage in terms of net taxes in voting for Bush; I think he'll be much more protective of the net economy than Gore.
Personality
By all accounts, Bush has been quite successful in administrating a major state and building a policy consensus. Of course you can nibble at his record at the margins, but no politician does a perfect job anywhere. Bush came to office saying he would focus on certain issues, including education. He focused, and those areas have improved significantly.
I'd count this as the mark of a successful leader of men, not a dumbass. A successful leader doesn't have to be the smartest person on the block; instead, he has to be inspirational and know what principles to work on. I'm probably smarter than my boss, the person who runs the company I work for, but he has the skills needed to rouse the troops, and he adheres to the principles that make the company successful. You could say I'm like Gore and my boss is like Bush. Guess what? He does a darn sight better job than I would, because he has skills I lack.
Same with Gore and Bush. Gore strikes me as a playground bully; Bush is a concilitator. Who's going to do better at negotiating with Congress?
Inconsistency on the Issues
Gore has perfected the chameleon-like poses of Clinton. He's swung violently from the left to the right on a wide range of issues. Take the environment. In Earth in the Balance, he wanted to ban the internal combustion engine. Now he doesn't, because it would cost him votes. He's taken enormous donations from tobacco interests, and served them well in the senate; now he's as against tobacco as anyone.
Gore has put on a large number of masks in the campaign, from populist to conservative who won't change a thing from the Clinton years. He's particularly upsetting as a populist; the mask of "fighting for the american people" feels so phony you can almost see the rubber.
I don't think we've seen the Real Gore yet. I do think we've seen the real Bush. He's been extremely consistent in his positions throughout the campaign.
Governing Policies
Bush is a lot like Reagan: Create a program consisting of four or five major points, and once in office push like crazy for those points. Keep focused.
This is why Reagan, a supposedly dumb man, managed to get a heck of a lot more done than theoretically smarter Clinton, Carter and Bush Sr. The more you are inclined to get into details, like Gore does, the more bogged down you are doing the actual work of the Presidency.
I'm going to make a prediction: Bush will be a much more effective President than Clinton or Gore if he wins. He has a disciplined, well-managed team behind him, and he's focused on the issues he cares about. I think that's an enormous plus.
----
Never forget that.
The Senate, IIRC, has a say in almost all (all?) of the appointments that the President tries to fill.
ISTR that certain Senators have been known for putting "holds" on nominations for seats such as Federal judgeships in order to gain leverage; from what I gather, such a hold even blocks a nomination from reaching a confirmation vote until lifted.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
In my opinion, the appalling numbers associated with the elections have a few factors that drive people away from the ballots.
One is that we are only truly exposed to two choices and this is like asking a large part of the population to choose from the lesser of two evils. Sure, if you do some looking about, then you'll find the rest of them, but these other, smaller parties should have just as much coverage and chance as the dichotomy that takes over the news, radio, and TV. But money rules popularity...
Another is that we aren't really brought up to vote. I don't remember ever being told about it in school after about 6th grade, and this is just depressing. Since it isn't embedded in our consciousness we don't see it as a major part of our lives. It seems that the schools are afraid to teach about this for fear of parents having the same reaction as if the teachers were manipulating kids into certain political views.
People have to get off their asses, actually learn something, and go vote based on that information. Or stop complaining about it, because by not voting, they are simply not helping their choice win.
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
Because Republicans are very unlikely to agree with me on issues involving personal privacy, gay rights, corporate rights, HMO liability, environmental issues, police searches, and yes, abortion.
Seeing as I have no idea who exactly might be picked on either side, it's a bit of a crap shoot on any given issue, but democratic beliefs tend to mirror my own a little more accurately than republican beliefs, though both are mirrors of the funhouse variety.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
I'm voting for Gore. Not because of any "strategic voting", not because of the media's brainwashing, but because of the Supreme Court.
/. community wants to believe there are more than two serious contenders, there aren't. Bush or Gore. Yes, it's because people are sheep, yes it's because people don't take time to look past the media brainwashing, but the plain fact remains that there are only two people who have a serious chance at being elected.
Of the candidates, however much it seems the
Of the two, Gore has been VP for 8 years, and Senator before that. Bush has served in one of the, if not the single weakest gubernatorial position in the country. Before that, what? Big oil? Part owner of a baseball team? How does that qualify him to be President? I can see where he's qualified to run a company, but a country is a different animal.
Now, of the two that have a chance to win, I somehow can't see Bush doing much to protect the Internet when it's being attacked by corporations. (yes, I know the corporations give to both campaigns, but I'd make better odds that Gore would push better solutions) Consequently, I'd sooner trust Gore and the Democrats to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would find in our favor. Especially with the treaty to magically stop hackers being presented in Europe.
I'm not saying the system works, I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be changed, but given the harsh realities of our 2-party system, Gore is the best vote for the Internet Community.
Busco a alguien que me quiera como yo la quiera.
It's funny, 'cause it's true.
-----
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
Of course, I just want consequence-free sex. That's why I have a 4-year old daughter who I love dearly, and who has brought joy and a lack of sleep into my life, even though I'm not married, and it was accidental.
You're right, I do love to fuck my brains out without worry about the consequences. Now that I have one child, I know that if the consequence is another child, I'd be delighted, if surprised.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
It always surprises me that people here are in favor of Gore. It seems to go against most geek theories.
First of all, I think it is useless to talk about Bush vs Gore without talking about the advisors they will surround themselves with. Bush seems stupid, yes, but he also seems like he would listen to his cabinet. Gore seems just intelligent enough to be dangerous to the country, not listening to advisors while charging off on some personal crusades.
That being said, look at the differences between their parties' platforms. IN THEORY the republicans want to distribute the power allowing the states to have more control and the federal government less. This distribution of power seems much more along the lines of what geeks would ask for. Just as OS is all about giving choices in programs, letting states set the laws would give people more of a choice (granted noone really wants to move) and more space to experiment with different approaches. Also, things like school vouchers foster competition for money, just like the OS programs keeping companies on their toes.
Granted Republicans are not entirely consistant behind their ideals (Christian Coalition) but they are there and often do make it into politics.
Even more important for a president, I think Bush would do a better job with foreign policy than Gore. I simply think Bush has the balls to do the right thing with the military to avoid the complete screwups of Clinton. I would even propose that something in the liberal mindset makes them poor commanders-in-chief. I wouldn't be alone in making that proposition, either.
I completely blame Clinton for many things icluding the price of oil and the current slowdown of the US economy (and it is a slowdown...). I think Gore is a little more upstanding than Clinton, but even worse in terms of personal agendas. He would just push forward more of Clinton's erronious policies but adding an extra layer of overstated environmental concerns and wussy foreign policy, all of these places Bush would shine in with help from his advisors.
Yes! Democrats are better because they give more support to things like research for the sake of research, but that doesn't outweigh the drop in the standard of living that they bring about. Handle research funding through Congress where it belongs and let's have a president who can keep us from ticking of the rest of the world.
If Al Gore was recognizably the same Al Gore who WROTE Earth in the Balance, then I would have to agree. I'd barely recognize him, myself -- he's been pandering to the center and center-right for the past eight years, and I for one am getting very nervous about continuing to support an increasingly non-progressive Democratic party just because they are marginally saner than the Republicans on social and environmental issues.
I am not terribly fond of the idea of 4 years of Shrub in office, but I'm beginning to wonder if there is any other way to get this message across.
It's a lose/lose proposition. I'm voting for Nader precisely because I don't like either one of the major party candidates.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
>Government regulation saving a million
>lives: good thing, or bad thing?
The government could lock everyone in a cage, feed them nutritious food, ensure they receive adequate exercise, and treat them when they get sick. It would increase the average life expectancy by 20 years. Everyone would be perfectly safe. Good idea or bad?
Government imposed safety is the antithesis of freedom. Ie. you can be safe, or you can be free, you probably can't be both.
Besides - define "saved lives". The last time I checked, everyone still has to die sometime, from something.
>In other words, would you support a system where
>the rich could buy replacement organs and the >poor could make big bucks by selling
>their kidneys?
Why not? As long as no force or coercion is used to make someone give up their organs, who even cares? It's called freedom.
As for roads, that's the only tough one one the list. There are some things government does much better than individuals can. Space-limited infrastructure is one such thing.
That's pretty funny.
Of course, in the overall political scheme of things, if you look at what he was advocating at the time, Richard Nixon would be too far left to be electable in the current political climate.
This depresses me greatly.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
NOTE: I don't see it on their website, but the Libertarian candidates I have asked via e-mail all agreed it past due and they supported reforming both elections and eliminating campaign finance laws. These include NC Governor (Barbra Howe), 4th NC district for US house (Brian Towney) and 62nd NC House district (Ian Sands).
Take it for what its worth...I'll be vote straight party this election ;) Straight Party Libertarian!
What I want to know is: Who else is producing on this idea already? Who's toes would I be stepping on?
Not much time left!
--Craig Meyer, craig@civilution.com, 206/669-6496
I live in Georgia (a "big" Libertarian state btw), and I can definitely prove that the government does NOT do a good job with roads. It took the state 2 years to expand a bridge on I-75 a few exits south of mine. My exit, and the one north and the one south of mine were requested to have the same thing done about 5 years ago. Chances are construction won't begin for another 3 years, and when it does, it'll take 2 more to complete. Do you think any private company would hire workers that took that long to get anything done? Heck no!
It doesn't suprise me that a lot of people don't know that this is an election year. If you don't live in a contested state, your vote doesn't interest the canidates.
The problems is that with all the polling that is done today, canidates don't feel the need to advertise in states where thier opponent is leading... or in states that are too small to have any real affect.
I live in Connecticut. You see very few... ok almost no signs for Gore or Bush. Hell I see more signs for Liberman for Senate than Gore/Liberman. There aren't even any commercials on the TV or radio. Not that I'm complaining mind you. This has been one of the most pleasent election seasons that I can remember.
Anyway, with so little advertising going on, how would you expect to get the attention of someone who already feels left out of the system?
gwonk25% of citizens 18-24 cannot name both major party presidential candidates and 70% cannot name their running mates.
People say this kind of thing with a shake of the head and a cluck of the tongue. But why should people give a fuck who these guys are? The government will be stealing your money and fucking you over next year no matter which golden boy of the Democratic Republican Party gets the big chair and all the photo-ops. People have other things to worry about in life, like how to make the rent from their after-tax income, or how they're going to find the time and money to regularly travel the 500 miles to visit their sister who's in Federal prison for the next 20 years because her boyfriend sold some pot to a friend of hers or something. Life is going on while G.W. Bush and Al Gore have their asses kissed by the media everywhere they go.
These fuckers are tyrants, and we're supposed to read up on their activities and even give a shit? No way. They spent almost every minute of their "debates" basically saying 'I agree with him, but I'll spend more of any future surplus on this issue than he will'.
By the way, if you have a non-violent friend or loved one in prison in the US right now (60% of the over 2 million incarcerated), keep in mind that Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party said that he would pardon those people on his first day in office. If they are actually addicted to a drug (most are not), they will get treatment, because a Libertarian government won't get between you and your doctor, even if your medical treatment requires that you take a maintenance dose of a "recreational" drug for the rest of your life.
Regarding his Divinity School experience, maybe this explains what happened:
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/0
And more substantiation from http://www.usembassy.ro/Elections/gore.html :
Education: Vanderbilt University School of Religion, 1971-72.
Professional: Newspaper reporter, Nashville Tennesseean, 1973-76.
"...Returning to civilian life, Gore settled in Tennessee and attended
Divinity School while working nights as a newspaper reporter with The
Tennessean in Nashville."
He didn't flunk out, he dropped out of the program, probably after the
add-drop deadline.
I can, however, believe that someone who has been raised to believe that the proper function of government is to make decsions for an incompetant populace would find the idea of a minimalist government frightening. They might actually have to think. Oh, my! Both of the major parties seem to want to think for you but on different issues. Flip sides of the same coin.
When the operating premise has been 'Vote for me and I'll take goods from the other guy and give them to you' there's perhaps a feeling of outrage that an entitlement is being taken away.
Worse still, the fed takes wealth from everyone and then offers to 'help' if the would be recipients act in the way the fed wants. A rather nifty way to avoid constitutional limits on Fedaral authority. By the time the fed has taken the taxes, there's not enough left to do what needs doing with local resources. C'mon! The goal of congress is to channel the appropriated wealth of the nation into their state. Into their particular pork barrel. Democrats and republicans both seem to be unable to resist the temptation to spend.
Hmm, your kidding- right? Do you propose that we all be responsible for the actions of our neighbors? Do you propose that we not be responsible at all for our own actions? It rather sounds like you have not a clue what Liberatians advocate. I think the goal is not the elimination of government (FUD, if I ever heard it!) but rather restricting the fed to it's constitutionaly dictated limits.
Some how an important principle has been turned inside out. The constitution states, essentially, that the citizens have the right to do what they wish exepting that it infringe on anothers rights. It does not delineate the only rights that they have; it merely high lights those the founders thought most important. Some feared that a bill of rights would be construed as defining the only rights allowed, hence:
On the other hand, government is strictly limited to only those functions dictated by the constitution; not those which are not prohibited to it by the Constitution - which seems to be where we are now. We are free to act except where specifically prohibited (theft, murder, fraud etc) whereas the gov is only free to act where it is specifically allowed to.As it is, the various governing bodies from the fed to those more local persist in attempting to restrict behaviour to even less than what is enumerated by the bill of rights. They are being treated as the only rights we enjoy and we've bought into that lie.
There is no 'penumbra' that we need hide under or be restricted to; quite the opposite.
Liken the problem to this classic: so, have you quit beating your wife yet? How you frame the issue effects the discussion. The question is a false dichotomy. I've never beaten my wife but the question does not allow for that answer. As Orwell pointed out, in a double-plus-good book, control language and you control thought.
It's the government which must operate under a narrowly defined 'penumbra' of permissible action while the citizens enjoy freedom of action in the sunlight except in narrowly defined cases. For those with the stomach:
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/privacy.shtml
Nader has tried time and time again to point out the sheer falseness in Gore's claim that he has been one of the most avid proponents in cleaning up the environment. Bush's campaign won't make those points because they could just come right back at him concerning the environmental record of Texas (some of which would actually be true ;-). However, Nader (who has "nothing to lose") can point out Gore's true record on the environment. It's a damn shame too, because the environment is the only issue Gore has going for him.
"I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
You don't have a say in abortion, you don't have to carry the child for 9 months.
Well put! And my intention was to generate some intelligent posts on Libertarianism for once...thank-you (and I do not mean that sarcastically).
Dude, ease up on the coffee! We aren't all out to get you! :)
Here's my thoughts.
In April of 1865, the grand experiment that was America turned into a shadowy reflection of itself and has not emerged since.
For those not in the know, 1865 was the end of the Civil War and the rise of dicatatorial Republican power. This power is what gave rise to the famed 14th Amendment and its ramifications and ambiguities regarding C(c)itizenship.
For most of the last 135 years, the Federal government has taken rights and privelidges it was never intended to have. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but from my interpretation, the Federal government is the binding force that acts as the unified face for the states. In very few instances does the federal government have direct jurisdiction over the populace itself.
In contrast, today we have many, many laws governing our everyday life in a direct way that are mandated by the federal government. Take drugs for example. Why is it illegal to smoke weed? Who else besides me does it hurt?
Another example is the new drunk driving law put into effect. The federal government is blackmailing states to go along. Why is this allowed? Not that this is, per se, a bad idea, but this is and should not be a federal issue. This is a state decision.
When I started this election year, I was going to vote for Bush. I have always supported the republicans since I've been able to vote. After watching the debates, I realized that the two major candidates are just carbon copies of each other and neither have addressed my concerns.
I'm 26, married with a daughter, and I work in a well paying job. I could give a damn about social security as I've never planned to see dime one from it I have my own retirement accounts set up. I'm insured and I have a prescription drug benefit. The tax cut, that's a joke. What is the average cut $500 - $1000 per year depending? Even at that, what does that amount to...just under the price of a loaded pizza each week. Woo Hoo.
After doing reasearch, I decided to vote for Brown. He makes sense for me and my views. Does he have a chance to win...not even close, but I cannot in good conscience vote for either Mr. Bush or the current Vice President. I'm voting as a protest, that we cannot continue. The arrogance of the American Federal government must end. We seem to have forgotten, of the people, by the people for the people.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
well although I don't share your sentiments of leaving the US I do agree that it is time for our country to return to the principles it was founded on, the Constitution.
My feeling is that the purpose of government is to protect the welfare and liberty of its people. Drugs are not a matter of "It's my life, I can do what I want." They are not dangerous only to those who use them, but also to the people around the user. They can destroy multiple lives. That's why they are illegal. By your reasoning, government restrictions on drunk driving are anti-freedom. But the reason the restrictions are there is that drunk driving impinges on the liberty of those people who you endanger by driving. Drugs are the same.
Well I'd have to say that you are right about one thing Praedor.. the Government is the people. Considering that 50% of the working American populace is employed by the government (at the federal, state, or local level). As for a revolution I would hope it doesn't come to that. Although I am glad that we will still have some guns around if things get nasty. Personally, I believe all that needs to be done to convince Americans of the enourmously bloated size of the government is to make them write and sign the checks every month for tax payments. I can just see the average person signing away hundreds with every pay check wondering exactly where all their money went. With income tax withholding most people don't even know how much they waste on bloated government projects, instead they only see the bottom line: their take home pay (the 60% that the government lets them have) before property taxes, sales tax, taxes people pay for because of taxes on imported products, etc.
I am, by no means, a Clinton supporter. Further, I believe the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") to be unconstituional: it is overreaching (see the recent Violence Against Women Act decision) and likely a violation of the "full faith and credit" clause. And even if it were constitutional, I don't believe it to be good.
That said, Clinton had no real choice. The bill garnered such high support in Congress that it was veto-proof; even if he had vetoed it, it would still become law. Why fall on your sword? Sticking to his principles (even if this is Clinton we are talking about, let's assume he has some) would be political harikari, except no one would care.
Presidents cannot change the culture by signing bills or vetoing them. To think they can is foolish. Ralph Nader, President? QED.
And this brings up "Motor Voter" and a lot of other silly election laws. Why should someone who can't even get up the initiative to go to their library or postoffice to register be allowed to vote? These are the last people I want voting! The franchise should only be given to those who actually want it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'm from Australia, so I can't vote in the election. It is of interest to me, though, because the US goverment is probably as important to Australia as our own (Sad but true).
I tend towards the left side of the centre politically, so there was no way I was really going to be a fan of Harry Browne's political views. After doing some reading in preperation for the K5 interview I was truely shocked at how naive the mans views are, though. I realise that he can afford not to have his idealistic Libertaian views tempered by reality because he isn't goint to win, but I did think he would/should care more about the specific issues rather than the politics.
Take his stance on environmentalism. I'm sure it is nice from the Libertaian political point of view, but from the environmental point of view it sucks, badly. Rather that go into it, read my about it - I got fairly worked up.
He clearly ;has no idea about intellecual property. Suggesting protecting it by saying use encryption make for a good sound-bite, but doesn't address specific issues like patent reform.
I could go on but I won't. All I'll do is say he sounds just like a hundred other politicions. He just echos the same statements over & over. Read his website - you won't find anything new in the K5 interview, because he doesn't want to say anything. Nothing jumps out and makes me think "Now there is a leader".
Fortunately in California this election I can actually vote for a major party candidate I like: Tom Campbell. He's the republican candidate for senate, but he's a fairly strict consitutionalist, and has the distinct advantage of actually having a chance at winning.
When someone's platform is "the war on drugs has failed", does it really matter whether they call themselves a libertarian?
So I'll be voting for him, otherwise straight libertarian.
from a game theory perspective vote swapping could easily be made to collapse because it's based on the honor system and there is no verification of the votes. Bush voters could pretend to be Nader supporters and "swap" with Gore supporter. Then the Bush supporter could just vote for Bush instead.
.02
Nader supporters who dislike Gore could trick some Gore supporters into voting for Nader to get Nader the 5%.
Unscrupulous Gore supporters who just want some more votes for Gore could promise to "swap" for a Nader vote. Then they could turn aroud without honoring the trade and vote for Gore.
The swap system depends too much on the honor system because there is no verification of identity and ultimately no verification of the promised vote. Republicans could pose as Nader supporters and send some of Gore's votes to Nader.
Some people would argue that this is dishonest. Well according to the article, the people who would be doing this type of swapping are voting strategically. They don't idealize voting as "voting from the heart". Instead it's a strategic choice. Therefore, to participate in swapping could be considered good strategy also by the other side since there's no enforcement. Nobody will know of you lied about who you are and how you'll vote.
my
Bush's plan is to invest contributions in the stock market instead. If we assume a 1% growth in GDP, the stock market will:
Answer c).Most people my age understand enough basic economics to realize that they are more likely to see a flying saucer than a Social Security check.
"Basic economics" can sometimes teach you the durndest things. Slightly more advanced economics often tells you that it ain't necessarily so.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
True. But this is mostly because the Senate Judiciary committee hates Clinton passionately. They're willing to hobble the court system with vacancies for a few years rather than let Slick Willie have more say in future rulings. The holds will pretty much end in January, whether it's for Bush or Gore appointees.
Yes, that's all fine and good for citizens, but what should all the consumers do?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
It was so nice that they did that at the library.
Now they do it at the driver's licence office, too. You get your license and they register you right there. This bothers me. Although I am a fan of democracy, I am also a fan of informed democracy; after all, would you rather have a government elected by people who know how to drive, or who know how to read?
OTOH, Arandir, there are an awful lot of people who live in deplorable conditions, and they take it for granted that since the rest of society ignores them, screws them, mistrusts them, and otherwise puts them down, they pretty much take for granted that they are not just figuratively disenfranchised.
Some of them are amazingly dumb, true, but most of them are at least as smart as the middle class soccer moms who keep shoving their SUVs into my lane while driving home to watch Oprah. The main difference is that these disenfranchised citizens don't know what they can do and what rights they have, because nobody bothered to tell them. To explain it away with some glib statement that "the franchise should only be given to those who actually want it" assumes they even know that their franchise exists, let alone how to use it.
The degree of isolation and segregation--both economic and social--that creates these circumstances is amazing. The schools given to these people offer them no hope, and no education: a third drop out, and a third of those who stick around are still functionally illiterate.
The the gap between us and them is like an Antarctic crevasse. Over on our side, we have a sustainable economy, one that can exist with or without them. If we can ignore them, we will, because our lives are already too goddamned busy to worry whether somebody who will never play a role in our lives is being fucked so badly by their own government and society that they're going to starve. I'm not talking about random Ethiopian refugees; I'm talking about people who live within fifty miles of you, or ten.
So before you go saying things like "if they don't know, they don't deserve to know", remember just how incredibly easy it is for you to find out just about anything with your thousand dollar computer and your $20/month 'Net access. Then remember there are millions of people, right there in your own "developed" nation, for whom twenty dollars not spent on food is two days they and their children don't eat.
A lot of things you haven't been taught are non-obvious. It's not obvious to separate light and dark colors in laundry; it's not obvious it is that AB+AC=A(B+C). It's not obvious that you should wash your hands before you handle food or that you should vaccinate your babies. And when you've been told since birth that your sole purpose in life is eventually to die, it's not obvious you have the right to vote.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
I'm not going to point out the reasons why you are an idiot.. however I will say browne is on 49 of 50 states. Pretty damn close I think.
Let me get this straight...
The above poster spends a good deal of time making many, many good points about the failings of the Libertarian Party platform. Failings that cause people who consider themselves libertarians (note the small "L") such as myself --people who want to actually go beyond sales-pitch catchphrases such as "Government doesn't work" and "My first question to nominess for the Supreme Court; 'can you read'?" and find out what a Libertarian presidency will actually try to accomplish should Browne be elected -- to question whether or not they plan to vote Libertarian this year.
And your well-considered and measured response is a two-sentence cheap ad hominem attack?
I really, really hope your reply is not the typical attitude of the Libertarian (note the big "L") voter or party member, because if it is the Libertarian Party will never, ever move beyond being a fringe party, and you'll have only yourselves to blame.
What's the current membership of the party, anyways? 40,000 or so? Kinda fell short of the mark that the LP's Project Archimedes, which boasted of trying to increase membership from 26,000 registered members to a goal of 200,000 "contributing supporters", was trying to reach. According to the LP's own news release in February, Archimedes was falling short of its mark and had only increased contributing supporters by 18,000 to around 39,000 (wait a minute, if you started at 26,000 and added 18,000, shouldn't that be 44,000? Where did 5,000 people go?). And that's counting "contributing supporters", which are distingished from registered party members in some unclear way -- I guess if you're giving the LP money, that's as good as actually supporting their principles.
(The same press release, by the way, claims that the goal of Archimedes is to reach 60,000 members by the end of 2000. Where did the 200,000 number go, I wonder?)
Maybe the LP had trouble generating support because people don't like being called "idiots" when they ask questions about the Party's actual plans for accomplishing its goals and expect more substance than regurgitations of LP press releases and position papers.
As for why your candidate isn't on the ballot in all 50 states, why is it that the Arizona Libertarian Party has split into two separate parties, with the party faction sponsored by the national Libertarian Party suing the Arizona Libertarian Party for the right to be the "official" LP of Arizona? And unsuccessfully, at that; the ALP is still the official party, and is endorsing their own candidate, L. Neil Smith, as the Libertarian candidate for President. (There's a thought; maybe the LP should fracture even further, and have 50 LPs each offering their own presidential candidates? The [Ll]ibertarian voters can write in the candidate that they feel is best...)
And doesn't say much about the LP's stance regarding "initiatory force" if they try to use the "meddlesome" court system to force the state of Arizona to recognize their faction as the "official" ALP, does it? Apparently the courts should keep their hands off of Microsoft, but heaven forbid that Arizona libertarians want someone other than Harry Browne as their presidential candidate!
Jay (=
You'd have to tack a few more greats on to that. My family has been in the north and free for 6 generations. I don't imagine that you can do the math though.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I grew up in rural California, and it must be a whole different universe than urban Georgia. For one thing, every child went to school, and civics class was required. It din't matter how rich or poor you were, or what your skin color was. You took civics in both junior high and high school.
If you were born a citizen in California and went to school there, you KNOW you have the right to vote. If you are a naturalized citizen, then you had to study for your citizenship test, and you KNOW you have the right to vote. It's time Georgia gets its act together.
As for my $20 dollar net connection, this will be the first presidential election in which I am not classified under the poverty line. And I've voted in five previous presidential elections...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Do you know what the definition of the word "nigger" is? I assume that you don't, because of all of the people with whom I've disagreed on /., you're the one who most accurately depicts it.
And JYI, you've gotten it backwards. The anti-jew rhetoric states that it's the Jew who uses the black as muscle...
Another point of interest, like most black people, my family has been in this country longer than the vast majority of yours.
I don't need affirmative action to get a job. I get jobs because I'm very good in my chosen career field.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I'm part native american. Go fuck your self.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
isnt that a sin? fucking myself would be bad in the eyes of someone against sodomy, yes?
I've not mentioned sin in this discussion. Why do you?
Who said that I'm "against sodomy"? I've merely stated that there is no right to it.
youre still only 25 you have alot of time to turn yourself around and become more like whites.
WOW, you apparently know me. You know my age. Am I supposed to be impressed because of that? I'm also 6'1", 210 pounds, and hung like a moose. So, no thank you, I do not wish to be "more like whites".
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
read up on paganism, you totally contradict pagans beliefs, shouldnt you be believing in allah?
It depends on how you choose to define pagan. If you only include Wiccans and related beliefs, I suppose that my opinions would be contradictory.
But I don't see it that way.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why is there no second moon in the night sky? What doesn't make sense is your question.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Let me know....
I don't care how you see it, you think you're pagan, but you contradict.
I don't "think" that I'm a pagan any more than I "think" that I'm black. I simply am.
They have the same rights as you and I
Have you seen me claim otherwise?
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
no, why do you say there is no right for consenting adults to do what pleases them???
Because there is no such right. If you got off on the idea of someone killing you and found someone else who was willing to do so, would that be ok?
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Have you seen me claim otherwise?
Yes, you're against sodomy. Sodomy is one way a gay man expresses his love for another gay man, or in some cases, even heterosexual couples. It's their private business, and you want to deny them their RIGHT to express themselves. That's how you are trying to deny them their rights.
Why do you say there is no such right? In my state, there are no sodomy laws, so yes, I do have the right. Sodomy laws were first enacted to persecute homosexuals. Ever heard of the Jim Crow laws? Jesus, talk about a hypocrite. During the 60's, there were laws that wouldn't have let you use the same bathrooms as whites, sit in the same sections, use the same water fountains, etc., at the time you didn't have the right. So at the time, were those laws right then, to deny you the same rights as whites?
It's their private business, and you want to deny them their RIGHT to express themselves. That's how you are trying to deny them their rights.
You can't deny someone something that doesn't exist.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So sodomy doesn't exist? What an EXTREMELY ignorant stance. Why can you not tell me why people should not practive sodomy in their own private lives? Can you give me one good reason? And stop this "not their right" bullshit, I want to know an actual reason why people shouldn't practice sodomy. I bet you can't. Sometimes it makes me wonder, my relatives fought to give you equal rights in the 50s and 60s and then you pull this shit. Wake up.
So sodomy doesn't exist?
I never said that. I said that a right to sodomy doesn't exist.
Why can you not tell me why people should not practive sodomy in their own private lives?
I haven't said that sodomy should be prohibited. And what's with this "Private lives" bullshit? You libs love that phrase, don't you?
I want to know an actual reason why people shouldn't practice sodomy.
I don't have any such reason. However if the people of a state choose to enact a law that prohibits it, they're within their rights.
Sometimes it makes me wonder, my relatives fought to give you equal rights in the 50s and 60s and then you pull this shit.
What, do you think that I owe you something for events that transpired before my birth? According to your liberal logic, since I wasn't a person then, none of that matters.
It's deeply offensive to compare deviant sexuality to skin tone. I can't choose to stop being black. Women can't choose to stop being women. (Ethnic) Jews can't choose to stop being Jewish. You can choose to stop being a sodomite.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's easy to make threats AC. Care to try? Come and get a little Reginald Denny treatment.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Ok, so here's the question, I am just trying to understand you.... Say here's the situation, let's say you're in a relationship with a girl and you've been sexual for a while, she asks to try anal sex, what do you tell her?
Say here's the situation, let's say you're in a relationship with a girl and you've been sexual for a while, she asks to try anal sex, what do you tell her?
It all depends on if I'm in the mood. However, in my state there are no legal prohibitions against it.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But there is no right to it you've said?
You are correct. If it were a prohibited activity and I choose to take part, I'd have to risk facing the penalties.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Ok, I think I understand now :)
So it's ok as long as it is not in one of the prohibited states? Just wanted to make sure...
I read some of the vile posts to your other posts, it is disgusting what that AC is saying, don't let it get to you, he sounds like an uneducated idiot.
So it's ok as long as it is not in one of the prohibited states? Just wanted to make sure...
I have no problem with the way that anyone chooses to have sex. If the way that you like/want to have sex is prohibited in your state you have a few choices, live with it, lobby your state government to repeal the law, or move. You can not reasonably expect the law to change because you whine and complain about it.
I read some of the vile posts to your other posts, it is disgusting what that AC is saying, don't let it get to you, he sounds like an uneducated idiot.
I never let anything that an AC get me bent out of shape. I'm only hoping that he has the guts to say half of it to my face.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Fuck off nigger.
Well, you've certainly changed your position :)
Well, you've certainly changed your position :)
Not at all, you've just taken the time to listen and understand it. Most of the other people involved in that discussion made assumptions about me and what I believe.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano