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).
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.
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
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
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
I really want to go with the Libertarians, but I'm sorry, the general population is just not smart enough to govern themselves.
It's good to know that someone out there is willing to take over responsibility for my personal decisions. Sadly, I'm just not smart enough to know what's in my own best interest.
--
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!)
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.
I respectfully disagree. This election isn't just about who's going to sit in the White House for the next four years; it's about who's going to sit on the Supreme Court for the next twenty.
Bush has stated that his favorite Justices on the Supreme Court are Scalia and Thomas. At present, at least two and maybe four Supreme Court justices are approaching the point where they will need to retire from the bench. These justices are all moderates or liberals and their replacements could decide on issues of privacy, reproductive freedom, and civil rights, in the very near future. A Bush election could mean the end of Roe v. Wade. A lot of people on the left would perceive this as a major loss, and it's not just Bush that they're going to blame.
I humbly submit to the reader, that a Bush win means four white-knuckle years for the Left, a Democratic party that's going to shift further to the right under the direction of the Democratic Leadership Council, and a Green Party that will lose its legitimacy with the Left. A Gore win gives the Left more wiggle room, and a chance to 'guilt' Gore into following up on his proposed policies in his book Earth in the Ballance.
That's my two cents, although it's probably worth less than that.
fearbush.com
Finding God in a Dog
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? :-)
Unlike tangible goods and real property, the nature of IP -- or any form of knowledge -- is to spread."
:)
Looks a lot like "Information wants to be free" to me..
Yes, but then he goes on to say
As far as IP being worthy of being safeguarded, it matters little to me whether or not a week's worth of my labor was spent fashioning a dining room table or writing code -- both consumed part of my life and are fruits of my labor, and I want both to be guarded from those who would take them without my giving me something in exchange.
The (unspoken) implication is that copyright, patents, and other forms of IP are OK, although strictly speaking he did not state that explicitly.
I think he (and a lot of people, both here and elsewhere) need to be educated and made to realize (or at least confront and argue against) the notion that a government mandated and enforced monopoly isn't necessary for IP creators to be fairly compensated and, furthermore, has a stifling impact on the field of endeavor so affected, not to mention the society, culture, and the economy as a whole.
Nevertheless, while Libertarians are split on the question of IP (and he perhaps falls on the wrong side of that debate), he is quite correct in saying that "our first step on the road to freedom is to return to the Constitution as the rule of law for our nation." We can (and must) fix the debacle that is IP, but he argues (perhaps correctly) that getting bogged down in that is putting the cart before the horse.
Although I disagree with his (implied) stance on patents and copyrights, I have been persuaded to vote for Harry Browne over Ralph Nader nevertheless. There is no candidate I agree with on every issue, but I agree with Harry Browne's agenda on far more points than I do with any other candidate.
(And yes, as someone who was going to vote for Ralph Nader based on his stance WRT corporate and special interests influencing government, I have had my mind changed. This happens from time to time, if one's mind is truly open.)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
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.
As a result of being on the Internet, my heart has turned dark.
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
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
"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.
I'm afraid that something like this might be a long time coming in our political system though. Seeing as this type of system would seriously damage the amount of power that the two major parties would have they would probably fight against it tooth and nail.
I guess implementation would have to change as well - it would be hard to read everyones numbers on the ballots, but if the election booths were digital and run on an isolated system you could have everyone go to the booth once, just type in their numbers (the system could regulate it so that they adhered to the rules) and it would be calculated and done with in no time. Mind you that we would have to have an extremely secure and fail-proof system, but it would probably be safer than the archaic ballot counting system we're using now anyways!
UBU
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.
Actually, that's four, and it should be five. The complete list for the 20th century is: McKinley-Roosevelt, Harding-Coolidge, Roosevelt-Truman, Kennedy-Johnson, and Nixon-Ford.
Also, if formal procedures for handling long-term Presidential incapacitation had been in place at the time, we probably would have added Wilson-Marshall.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.
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?"
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 really want to go with the Libertarians, but I'm sorry, the general population is just not smart enough to govern themselves. ---
I agree 100%. But who do you think makes up the government!?!? Those same idiots wandering around that can't even balance their checkbook. (And in their hands it's a trillion dollar checkbook!)
This is the missing puzzle peice that completly proves anarchism is the only rational path for human beings; only TRUE ABSOLUTE freedom allows progression of the human race.
Ideologically I don't believe in voting. (AKA relinquishing your right of free choice to another) But Browne gets me pretty damn close to where I want to be, so he's getting my support instead of me voting all 'None of the above' this year.
As for your drivel about how we are a 'country', a team, I owe you for something....
It's called dualistic thought. A flaw in human nature, and you've got it bad.
--
Voting for president is not like betting on a horse race. You gain nothing by choosing the winner. It is about supporting someone that doesn't have an interest in holding a gun to your head to make you do things you don't want to do. Harry Browne is the only one that qualifies. http://LP.org/
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.
I think this is backwards - most people realize that some form of government is a good thing. They may not agree on what or how much the government does, but they prefer some form of organization to mob rule.
Your (well, Fred's) quote assumes that people don't want government but keep forgetting to get rid of it. It is more the case that when presented with the alternative, most people prefer to have some sort of government, and vote accordingly.
But a government selected by the voters is legitimate, at least if we are considering legitimacy in terms applicable to democracy or a republic. I'm sure there are some people who don't consent to the legitimacy of a particular government (either because of election fraud or just from being sore losers), but those folks are welcome to leave for somewhere which has less government or a different one.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
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?"
If they are not smart enough to govern themselves, how are they smart enough to choose someone else to govern them?
--
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?"
"There he goes with the fuzzy numbers again."
G.W. Bush
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
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
This is a complete oversimplification. While comparing government to the software industry may make some nice sound bites, the two operate so completely differently that it can't go very far beyond the surface.
This may be your opinion, but it doesn't really explain why geeks shouldn't want a liberal President. Being technically adept does not necessarily mean you consider all liberals to be pansies.
Greedy members of OPEC are completely innocent? The rush of overzealous and underinformed do-it-yourself investors had no long-term impacts? All that money that venture capitalists threw at ultimately unviable dot-coms wasn't wasted?
That's a lot of blame to put on one guy, especially one guy whose job doesn't include drawing up the budget (that's Congress' job).
The economy is far too complex to put the blame for its failings on any one person. No matter who that person is.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
So since you're talking about using (or, as my libertarian cohorts say, stealing) the efforts of the non-redneck non-idiots who DO vote to support these people that you don't really have that much compassion for... what IS your driving reason to give the ugly hoi polloi a left up?
--
I can't believe anyone can say this with a straight face, after the Communications Decency Act, Clipper Chip, encryption export controls, and Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The Democrats are no better at protecting freedom on the Internet or anywhere else, and are worse in many ways.
Regarding an issue where there is a real different, vote for Bush or Browne if you'd like a chance of recovering any of your Social Security payments.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
You don't have a say in abortion, you don't have to carry the child for 9 months.
I'm a tax paying member of this society. I have as much of a say about the welfare of it's other members as anyone else.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Actually, I took a political quiz somewhere (I don't remember the site) and that's EXACTLY how it ranked them for me. Browne and Nader have similar positions on personal freedoms, though their economics are pretty much diametrically opposed. My economic views didn't really line up with anyone, so that category didn't have much of an effect.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
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".
I think he (and a lot of people, both here and elsewhere) need to be educated and made to realize (or at least confront and argue against) the notion that a government mandated and enforced monopoly isn't necessary for IP creators to be fairly compensated and, furthermore, has a stifling impact on the field of endeavor so affected, not to mention the society, culture, and the economy as a whole.
Government mandated and enforced monopoly? Do you have any idea what libertarians even are? Take a look at all of the intellectual property articles at Free Nation, especially this one. You don't need an official government pronouncement to make something property. Do you think that if the trespass laws were repealed that fence builders would go out of business?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
it gives corporations more freedom in things they can buy sell and own
Well, like, yeah! Of course. Real freedom is for everyone, not just the people you like. It is impossible for you to be free unless Bill Gates is free. This is what Nader doesn't understand, and why he offers a pseudo-freedom.
If you want freedom, vote Browne. If you want a free beer, vote Nader.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I really want to go with the Libertarians, but I'm sorry, the general population is just not smart enough to govern themselves.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a personal way of life. There is much, much more to libertarians than the Randroid Objectivists (who are a minority in the movement). Don't mistake self interest for selfishness. But libertarianism is about neither self interest nor altruism. It is about initiating violence against others. Simple. Defense but no offense. Nothing more.
So, you think that people are not smart enough to govern themselves? Then who are Nader, Buchanan, Gore and Bush? People! If they can't govern themselves (and I know that Clinton is unable to), then what makes you think they would do any better governing you and I?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.
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
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.
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 (=
Are publicly funded programs eliminated?
At the federal level, most of them would be. Harry Browne has a whole book on what he'd do, so it can't be summarized to easily, but the basics are:
* Sell of unneeded government assets. There are trillions of dollars in mineral reserves, land, old military bases, etc that the government has no Constitutional business owning. Browne estimates this would bring at least 5 trillion in.
* Use the proceeds to pay down the national debt and buy private retirement anuities for those currently dependent on social security. For younger workers, free them from the social security tax so they can afford to save for retirement.
* Cut most government programs. Return the money saved to taxpayers by ending the income tax. The Constitutional functions of the government would be funded by excise and sales tax.
* End corporate welfare. This fits in with the above, but it deserves some emphasis, as it's one of the biggest costs to the Federal government.
* Repeal regulatory agencies whose primary effect is to protect large firms from competition by harrassing their competitors, such as the FDA, ICC, EPA, OSHA, etc.
* End the drug war. Free federal prisoners convicted of non-violent drug crimes.
* End US imperialism abroad. The Browne administration will oversee an orderly withdrawal of our troops from foreign nations. Stop bullying other countries, bombing their cities, propping up their dictators, and giving their rebels weapons. Cut the military to the size needed for a purely defensive military force.
There's much more, obviously, but those are the high points. A Libertarian government would be about 10% of its present size, with most of its current functions handled by the states or the private sector. I think you'd see much more rapid growth, much more rapid progress for the poor and disadvantaged, much less corporate power over government, less threat of terrorism abroad, less drug-war-fueled crime, and many other benefits.
If there weren't publicly funded clinics that provide abortions and it was done by private doctors by no public subsidies, it would be ok?
No more than it is ok for the mafia to carry out hits and gangland executions. They're all privately funded. My standing to speak about it and hold an opinion comes from the fact that I am a member of this society.
"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
If there is a Libertarian president in the near future, what happens exactly? Are publicly funded programs eliminated?
There are different "factions" within the libertarian movement. The anarcho-capitalists favor eliminating all publicly funded programs immediately. The gradualist faction argues that it took up a century to get us into our present straight, and that it will take a century to get us out, and favor a gradual "growing down" of the government.
Most libertarians are in the middle. They recognize that some functions of government are necessary. And those functions are already delineated in the consititution. We favor getting rid of all non-constitutional roles of the federal government as soon as possible.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It's called "the great Libertarian offer," although you might not be able to order it in time for the election. The basic ideas are also at his web site, to: www.harrybrowne.org
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
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
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?
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
Its just a matter of what kinds of freedom you want.
Real freedom. The elimination of restrictions imposed on me by force. Ignore what you've been taught by your Public Indoctrination Center's civics teacher, and look it up in the dictionary. Pull out the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Reread Thoreau, Nock, Locke and Mill.
Should I be free to kill people and walk around society like I have done nothing?
No, because that isn't freedom...
Should I be allowed to own, buy and sell slaves?
Of course not! Did you even bother to take your brain out of neutral before responding? Go ask the slave if he is free. I guarantee you that he is not!
Freedom is for everyone, rich or poor, black or white, right or wrong. It's not for just a select few. You cannot be free as long as someone in your community is enslaved. And equal freedom! Bill Gates and ROger Smith get every bit as much freedom as you do, or you're a hypocrite.
Browne wants economic freedom, and nothing more, any personal freedom (like drug use) that comes out of it, is simply by chance, a side effect of economic freedom (freedom to sell drugs).
Absolutely backwards! Browne only wants personal freedom, and the economic freedom is a side effect. If I am free to give you a joint, and you are free to give me a green piece of paper, then we are both free to make an economic transactions where you give me a dollar for my joint. How could you possibly restrict my economic activities without restricting my personal freedom at the same time? It's impossible.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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
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
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
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
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