Did you know that the mafia was a small, relatively insignificant organization before the prohibition of alcohol? In fact, organized crime has always revolved around the distribution of illicit substances. Gangs today are funded almost entirely by selling illegal drugs. Of course, libertarians never advocate banning drugs (well, they never advocate banning anything, but that's another matter) so it would be hard for organized crime to stay afloat. The largest criminal organizations based on property crime are counterfeiters (if you call IP property) and pirates.
So a better question would be: who will defend you from pirates? But you'd be hard pressed to find a libertarian who thinks we shouldn't have a navy, or a civil justice system. And yes, I'm sure shipping insurance companies would be happy to fund navy anti-piracy missions.
I was a poor libertarian when I was working full time to put myself through school. Granted, I'm not poor anymore.
"People who donate to private charities would (and already do) pay their taxes, etc. Why would it be *better* if there were no taxes?"
Because they would give more money to charity? Your taxes don't generally help the needy (they mostly go to social security, defense spending, and infrastructure).
You seem to forget that while you have benefitted from the labour of others, they have also benefitted from your labors. So your wealth is what you've gotten out minus what you put in. In other words, your debt to society is already paid.
This other money they take from you with taxes is not repaying your debt to society. Politicians and voters who think they know how to spend your money better than you do are taking you money and spending it for you. They didn't earn this money, you did. And though they believe they are wise enough to know how to spend it, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that they will be any more responsible with it than you would have been.
"Do we expect the government to be as accountable as a "market" of charities."
In my experience, charities are only about as accountable as government agencies. The problem is that since it's not an investment, or a purchase, people don't pay attention to what's being done with the money. I strongly recommend that you volunteer at a charity if you're going to be giving money to it so that you can see first hand how it's used. Also, make sure that you know their financials (a lot of non-profits are scams).
I often wonder: do people (such as yourself) who post stuff like this actually believe it? Or are you trying to convince gullible people that it's the truth, knowing all the time that it's nonsense? It's hard to believe that anyone would , with no evidence whatsoever, believe such an outlandish claim. The level of delusion and paranoia present in this comment (indeed seen everywhere throughout this thread) is almost unbelievable. You should not make such outrageous charges when you have no evidence or proof of any kind.
My (former, schizophrenic, ex-con) roommate once accused me of poising him. His proof: he'd been sick more than usual lately. Ironically, he had more proof than you have!
Do you people just congregate here to convince yourselves that you aren't crazy? You need a serious reality check.
To be fair, he was trying to say "I will veto any bill containing earmarks", and the word beer is a mixture of the word bill and ear. I don't know why people make such a big deal when candidates misspeak, I say shit like that all the time. I think most people do. I'd doubt it has anything to do with his age.
Any formation when taken by itself is a small part of the worlds supply. If everyone took that attitude, we wouldn't have any oil. And no, alternative technologies would not provide more bang for your buck. At the vary least, if we drilled this oil, we could use it to build new alternative energy sources more cheaply. Good luck building your nuclear reactors, the same forces that stop new drilling will stop them too.
Didn't you watch There Will be Blood? It's called drainage! We should have been drilling down there years ago, now the Chinese have beaten us to it. Yes, it is a global market, but the last thing we need to do is increase our trade deficit for no reason at all.
"Not paying for services you use or benefit from is immoral. It's called theft."
Not if you don't ask for them. You don't have to pay that guy who washes your window when you stopped at a stoplight.
"I am not content to let irresponsible people be irresponsible."
Then you're not content to let people be free.
"Companies that sell insurance do it to make money, not to provide care."
As does any insurance company. Is car insurance or homeowners insurance also a scam? Of course not. The only reason medical insurance is different is people don't shop around for it. It doesn't have to be that way.
"These pricing distortions actually kill people."
No, a lack of trained medical professionals is what is killing people. Insurance companies are just in the unfortunate position of deciding who gets care and who doesn't. If it wasn't them making the decisions, it would be someone else. What is unacceptable is that the medical establishment seems content barring people from the market and setting quotas for no good reason other than tradition.
"They make you jump through some awful hoops, because they can."
No, they are trying to get rid of the people who don't really need care. The (flawed) assumption is that someone who really needs care will jump through hoops to get it.
"No, you're not independent. You paid years of your life and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the people who completely screwed you with the idea that you're an independent agent who is somehow more free and more of a man because you took the libertarian view of things."
Fine, then tell people that and let them decide for themselves, you don't know everything, and people have a right to decide for themselves. That's all I'm saying.
"A libertarian would voluntarily band together with his fellow man to pool the risk, "
That is what insurance is!!!!!!! Why do you think it would be any different if the government ran it? Because they would simply deny you care and let you die rather than let you bankrupt yourself? I'd rather be bankrupt than dead! I think that's a choice I should have!
"I am trying to persuade you here that these cocksuckers who sell you insurance that doesn't insure you, and who perpetuate the fiction that health care is a market like any other are using some pretty powerful force against you already."
Health insurance most certainly can be a market. General care, and long term care, and many other forms of healthcare are markets like any other. The only case where this is not true is emergency care. But you can shop for insurance for that. It's just that people don't because there is a huge tax incentive for using their employers health insurance.
"Defend yourself!"
You do that using lawsuits and criminal trials, not by nationalizing an entire sector of the economy. How will you defend yourself when it's the government screwing you? It will be a lot harder.
"Withholding medical service to people is immoral."
I agree, however since we *could* refuse service, I don't think it's fair to say that they have to pay. Taking money from people by force is immoral, so we shouldn't do it unless we really have to.
I say let people who are responsible buy health insurance to alleviate their worry, and let people who are irresponsible chose not to pay. Irresponsible people usually don't have a lot of money anyway.
Why should people have to pay for services that they haven't chosen to use? Shouldn't we have an opt-in or at least an opt-out policy. I can see demanding that people pay for national security, since it must be provided to them, but couldn't we just deny medical care to people who don't want to pay. It seems unfair to force people to pay for and use a service when we don't really have to provide it to them.
It seems especially unfair to say "just leave" to people who were born here and have lived here all their lives. Since you're the one who want's to change things, wouldn't it be better for you to leave? That way you wouldn't be imposing your will unfairly onto other people who see things differently.
That's right, everything is bad. There can never be any good news. Slash slash, bleed bleed. Maybe you should be making music rather than posting on slashdot.
But if someone doesn't want to pay for it, you shouldn't force them to.
"Take a look around at all the fatasses walking down the street."
I don't think fatness is usually caused by a lack of health care. Whenever someone is irresponsible it affects everyone, but living in a free society means putting up with the irresponsibility of others. Better to do that than to lose the ability to be responsible for yourself.
I wasn't trying to say that socialized medicine would lead to socialized housing. I was trying to say that socialized medicine is as pointless and absurd as socialized housing. I think you may have missed that because, maybe, you don't think socialized housing is as absurd as I do.
"Did I say that?"
I don't think you said that. But you did say that a single payer system is the only system that will solve the problem. Proponents of socialized medicine tike to make the argument that we need health care for all. They also like to point out situations where poor people in this country have to do without medical care, as an example of what socialized medicine would fix.
All I'm saying is that since it will do nothing to increase the amount of medical care available, it will do nothing to eliminate or fix our medical care shortage. And if we try to use price controls to control the cost of our system, it will actually reduce the availability of health care moving forward.
Any valid argument for socialized medicine (especially a single payer system) hinges around the assertion that everyone should have equal access to health care. I think that everyone should have access to health care when they need it. But I don't think it's fair or reasonable to demand that a wealthy person give up their heart transplant simply because a poor person can't afford one. Also, I think it's important that people be able to make their own choices regarding how to spend their money.
It is not a slippery slope argument (slippery slope arguments claim that something will be a problem later on after it snowballs, I'm trying to explain to you that it will erode your freedoms right away). Socialized medicine is a false hope. It may look cheaper in the short term, but in the long run price controls simply force care providers out of the market. You also don't seem to understand the basic principle that the government can not provide services that are unavailable. They can not provide you with a doctor if there is a shortage of doctors. However much medical care our society produces today is the same amount it will produce under a socialized system. Instead of not being able to afford a procedure, your doctor will simply tell you that you can't have it. It solves nothing. At the very least, higher pay rates encourage more people to become doctors and nurses.
If you want to reform the medical care in this country, you should look at ending employer provided medical insurance (so that people can shop around) and reforming the AMA (because the seem to enjoy capping our number of doctors for no reason at all).
You should note the old adage "it it seems to good to be true, it probably is". If someone tells you that they can give you free, unlimited medical care, and you don't have to do anything for it, don't listen to them. It doesn't make any sense.
You are a republican, but you want to vote for a candidate who will raise taxes and increase government regulation? You are a republican, but you support new government intervention in the health sector? If you really are a republican, and you actually know anything about Obama's platform, what reason could you possibly have to vote for him? I'm a republican, and I can't really find anything in his platform I agree with. I think the vast majority of all republicans will feel the same way. Maybe you're actually a democrat, and you're just confused. . .
Don't get me wrong, there have been democrats that I'd vote for. Especially if the republican candidate is extremely corrupt, or has a lot of views I don't agree with. But McCain almost has a spotless record, which is saying a lot for someone who has been in congress as long as he has. He has a lot of good ideas and he's not so arrogant that he thinks he knows everything.
I just can't fathom for the life of me why a republican would vote for Obama.
That's like saying that people who have 2 DUIs and 5 speeding tickets pay the same for car insurance as people who don't drink and have never gotten a ticket. They pay more. ..a lot more.
Pooling risk covers factors beyond your control. If you have a say in it, it's not a risk, it's choice.
Why do we need that? Food is more necessary than health care, do we need socialized food? What about housing, without shelter many of us would die from exposure. Do we also need socialized housing?
What you want are guarantees and easy answers that the government simply won't be able to give you. Do you honestly believe that socialized medicine will solve our medical care problems? How will it do that? There won't be more doctors or nurses, in fact cost controls will likely reduce the number of medical professionals. All health care systems have a system for determining who will get care and who will do without, because the reality is that you can't treat everyone. Some use gatekeepers, others place emphasis on certain procedures that have a higher benefit to cost ratio. In the US there are exactly two factors determining whether you get treatment: your willingness to pay and your ability to pay. I think this is preferable, since it allows me to make choices for myself (to the extent that I am able to pay).
Exactly what part of "Anything that puts more power in the hands of politicians takes power away from you" did you not understand? I think maybe you are the moron. There is more than one way to needlessly give away your freedom.
"Nothing more socialist than purchasing your insurance from a private insurance company."
Are you compelled by law to buy the insurance? That's a needless encroachment on your freedom. Are you forced into a "single payer" system? That's socialism.
For those of you who don't know, nationalize is a codeword that socialists use denote the taking of property by the government. It's similar to emminant domain, except that it is done in the name of "equality and fairness" rather than "the greater good". Of course, in reality it is done as various groups struggle to gain power for their own selfish or egotistical purposes (emminant domain is also usually used in this way).
That's why you should be wary of the new "national health care" craze. Anything that puts more power in the hands of pollitions takes power away from you, even if they say they're taking it from some rich guy or some corporation. Don't trust pollitions who promise easy answeres and unlimited financial or personal security. They will take whatever authority you give them, and they won't deliver on their promises (even if they honestly intend to try).
I thought there just had to be reason to believe the evidence was about to be destroyed. In cases of digital copyright infringement I would think this is always the case. Maybe they just need to find a more reasonable judge.
In all fairness, maybe people would care about science more people would stop using "science" to make poor public policy decisions (such as the RDA on sodium, or the endangered species act). Science can be useful, but it's often used by politicians to push a separate agenda. That is to the detriment of science. It doesn't help that you have liberal nut-job groups like the "Union of Concerned Scientists" who put the word in their fucking name, even though they have nothing to do with science.
You would not believe how hard it is to convince fellow Christians to pursue scientific endeavors. They all fear the discrimination and ostracism they will face in the field. Honestly, I can only stand it because I'm really arrogant and I like to argue.
The main-stream candidates are also more committed to maintaining the status quo. This may sound like a bad thing, but changing a lot of things all at once is much, much worse. It is a testimant to the supreme arrogance of man that almost everyone on this message-board believes they are intellegent enough to make radical, sweeping changes to the government and the economy without killing everyone.
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea. The only approach that works it making small changes over time and working toward your eventual goal. Libertarians should vote for the republican candidate, since he advocates deregulation and reliance on markets. This is not the same as making drugs and porn legal, but it's a step in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that the mafia was a small, relatively insignificant organization before the prohibition of alcohol? In fact, organized crime has always revolved around the distribution of illicit substances. Gangs today are funded almost entirely by selling illegal drugs. Of course, libertarians never advocate banning drugs (well, they never advocate banning anything, but that's another matter) so it would be hard for organized crime to stay afloat. The largest criminal organizations based on property crime are counterfeiters (if you call IP property) and pirates.
So a better question would be: who will defend you from pirates? But you'd be hard pressed to find a libertarian who thinks we shouldn't have a navy, or a civil justice system. And yes, I'm sure shipping insurance companies would be happy to fund navy anti-piracy missions.
"I've never seen a poor Libertarian."
I was a poor libertarian when I was working full time to put myself through school. Granted, I'm not poor anymore.
"People who donate to private charities would (and already do) pay their taxes, etc. Why would it be *better* if there were no taxes?"
Because they would give more money to charity? Your taxes don't generally help the needy (they mostly go to social security, defense spending, and infrastructure).
You seem to forget that while you have benefitted from the labour of others, they have also benefitted from your labors. So your wealth is what you've gotten out minus what you put in. In other words, your debt to society is already paid.
This other money they take from you with taxes is not repaying your debt to society. Politicians and voters who think they know how to spend your money better than you do are taking you money and spending it for you. They didn't earn this money, you did. And though they believe they are wise enough to know how to spend it, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that they will be any more responsible with it than you would have been.
"Do we expect the government to be as accountable as a "market" of charities."
In my experience, charities are only about as accountable as government agencies. The problem is that since it's not an investment, or a purchase, people don't pay attention to what's being done with the money. I strongly recommend that you volunteer at a charity if you're going to be giving money to it so that you can see first hand how it's used. Also, make sure that you know their financials (a lot of non-profits are scams).
I often wonder: do people (such as yourself) who post stuff like this actually believe it? Or are you trying to convince gullible people that it's the truth, knowing all the time that it's nonsense? It's hard to believe that anyone would , with no evidence whatsoever, believe such an outlandish claim. The level of delusion and paranoia present in this comment (indeed seen everywhere throughout this thread) is almost unbelievable. You should not make such outrageous charges when you have no evidence or proof of any kind.
My (former, schizophrenic, ex-con) roommate once accused me of poising him. His proof: he'd been sick more than usual lately. Ironically, he had more proof than you have!
Do you people just congregate here to convince yourselves that you aren't crazy? You need a serious reality check.
To be fair, he was trying to say "I will veto any bill containing earmarks", and the word beer is a mixture of the word bill and ear. I don't know why people make such a big deal when candidates misspeak, I say shit like that all the time. I think most people do. I'd doubt it has anything to do with his age.
Speculation is a part of it, yes. But most of the problem is increasing demand, and that's not going away anytime soon.
Any formation when taken by itself is a small part of the worlds supply. If everyone took that attitude, we wouldn't have any oil. And no, alternative technologies would not provide more bang for your buck. At the vary least, if we drilled this oil, we could use it to build new alternative energy sources more cheaply. Good luck building your nuclear reactors, the same forces that stop new drilling will stop them too.
Didn't you watch There Will be Blood? It's called drainage! We should have been drilling down there years ago, now the Chinese have beaten us to it. Yes, it is a global market, but the last thing we need to do is increase our trade deficit for no reason at all.
"Not paying for services you use or benefit from is immoral. It's called theft."
Not if you don't ask for them. You don't have to pay that guy who washes your window when you stopped at a stoplight.
"I am not content to let irresponsible people be irresponsible."
Then you're not content to let people be free.
"Companies that sell insurance do it to make money, not to provide care."
As does any insurance company. Is car insurance or homeowners insurance also a scam? Of course not. The only reason medical insurance is different is people don't shop around for it. It doesn't have to be that way.
"These pricing distortions actually kill people."
No, a lack of trained medical professionals is what is killing people. Insurance companies are just in the unfortunate position of deciding who gets care and who doesn't. If it wasn't them making the decisions, it would be someone else. What is unacceptable is that the medical establishment seems content barring people from the market and setting quotas for no good reason other than tradition.
"They make you jump through some awful hoops, because they can."
No, they are trying to get rid of the people who don't really need care. The (flawed) assumption is that someone who really needs care will jump through hoops to get it.
"No, you're not independent. You paid years of your life and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the people who completely screwed you with the idea that you're an independent agent who is somehow more free and more of a man because you took the libertarian view of things."
Fine, then tell people that and let them decide for themselves, you don't know everything, and people have a right to decide for themselves. That's all I'm saying.
"A libertarian would voluntarily band together with his fellow man to pool the risk, "
That is what insurance is!!!!!!! Why do you think it would be any different if the government ran it? Because they would simply deny you care and let you die rather than let you bankrupt yourself? I'd rather be bankrupt than dead! I think that's a choice I should have!
"I am trying to persuade you here that these cocksuckers who sell you insurance that doesn't insure you, and who perpetuate the fiction that health care is a market like any other are using some pretty powerful force against you already."
Health insurance most certainly can be a market. General care, and long term care, and many other forms of healthcare are markets like any other. The only case where this is not true is emergency care. But you can shop for insurance for that. It's just that people don't because there is a huge tax incentive for using their employers health insurance.
"Defend yourself!"
You do that using lawsuits and criminal trials, not by nationalizing an entire sector of the economy. How will you defend yourself when it's the government screwing you? It will be a lot harder.
"Withholding medical service to people is immoral."
I agree, however since we *could* refuse service, I don't think it's fair to say that they have to pay. Taking money from people by force is immoral, so we shouldn't do it unless we really have to.
I say let people who are responsible buy health insurance to alleviate their worry, and let people who are irresponsible chose not to pay. Irresponsible people usually don't have a lot of money anyway.
Why should people have to pay for services that they haven't chosen to use? Shouldn't we have an opt-in or at least an opt-out policy. I can see demanding that people pay for national security, since it must be provided to them, but couldn't we just deny medical care to people who don't want to pay. It seems unfair to force people to pay for and use a service when we don't really have to provide it to them.
It seems especially unfair to say "just leave" to people who were born here and have lived here all their lives. Since you're the one who want's to change things, wouldn't it be better for you to leave? That way you wouldn't be imposing your will unfairly onto other people who see things differently.
That's right, everything is bad. There can never be any good news. Slash slash, bleed bleed. Maybe you should be making music rather than posting on slashdot.
We import too much stuff anyways.
But if someone doesn't want to pay for it, you shouldn't force them to.
"Take a look around at all the fatasses walking down the street."
I don't think fatness is usually caused by a lack of health care. Whenever someone is irresponsible it affects everyone, but living in a free society means putting up with the irresponsibility of others. Better to do that than to lose the ability to be responsible for yourself.
I wasn't trying to say that socialized medicine would lead to socialized housing. I was trying to say that socialized medicine is as pointless and absurd as socialized housing. I think you may have missed that because, maybe, you don't think socialized housing is as absurd as I do.
"Did I say that?"
I don't think you said that. But you did say that a single payer system is the only system that will solve the problem. Proponents of socialized medicine tike to make the argument that we need health care for all. They also like to point out situations where poor people in this country have to do without medical care, as an example of what socialized medicine would fix.
All I'm saying is that since it will do nothing to increase the amount of medical care available, it will do nothing to eliminate or fix our medical care shortage. And if we try to use price controls to control the cost of our system, it will actually reduce the availability of health care moving forward.
Any valid argument for socialized medicine (especially a single payer system) hinges around the assertion that everyone should have equal access to health care. I think that everyone should have access to health care when they need it. But I don't think it's fair or reasonable to demand that a wealthy person give up their heart transplant simply because a poor person can't afford one. Also, I think it's important that people be able to make their own choices regarding how to spend their money.
It is not a slippery slope argument (slippery slope arguments claim that something will be a problem later on after it snowballs, I'm trying to explain to you that it will erode your freedoms right away). Socialized medicine is a false hope. It may look cheaper in the short term, but in the long run price controls simply force care providers out of the market. You also don't seem to understand the basic principle that the government can not provide services that are unavailable. They can not provide you with a doctor if there is a shortage of doctors. However much medical care our society produces today is the same amount it will produce under a socialized system. Instead of not being able to afford a procedure, your doctor will simply tell you that you can't have it. It solves nothing. At the very least, higher pay rates encourage more people to become doctors and nurses.
If you want to reform the medical care in this country, you should look at ending employer provided medical insurance (so that people can shop around) and reforming the AMA (because the seem to enjoy capping our number of doctors for no reason at all).
You should note the old adage "it it seems to good to be true, it probably is". If someone tells you that they can give you free, unlimited medical care, and you don't have to do anything for it, don't listen to them. It doesn't make any sense.
You are a republican, but you want to vote for a candidate who will raise taxes and increase government regulation? You are a republican, but you support new government intervention in the health sector? If you really are a republican, and you actually know anything about Obama's platform, what reason could you possibly have to vote for him? I'm a republican, and I can't really find anything in his platform I agree with. I think the vast majority of all republicans will feel the same way. Maybe you're actually a democrat, and you're just confused. . .
Don't get me wrong, there have been democrats that I'd vote for. Especially if the republican candidate is extremely corrupt, or has a lot of views I don't agree with. But McCain almost has a spotless record, which is saying a lot for someone who has been in congress as long as he has. He has a lot of good ideas and he's not so arrogant that he thinks he knows everything.
I just can't fathom for the life of me why a republican would vote for Obama.
That's like saying that people who have 2 DUIs and 5 speeding tickets pay the same for car insurance as people who don't drink and have never gotten a ticket. They pay more. . .a lot more.
Pooling risk covers factors beyond your control. If you have a say in it, it's not a risk, it's choice.
"Socialized medicine is what we need."
Why do we need that? Food is more necessary than health care, do we need socialized food? What about housing, without shelter many of us would die from exposure. Do we also need socialized housing?
What you want are guarantees and easy answers that the government simply won't be able to give you. Do you honestly believe that socialized medicine will solve our medical care problems? How will it do that? There won't be more doctors or nurses, in fact cost controls will likely reduce the number of medical professionals. All health care systems have a system for determining who will get care and who will do without, because the reality is that you can't treat everyone. Some use gatekeepers, others place emphasis on certain procedures that have a higher benefit to cost ratio. In the US there are exactly two factors determining whether you get treatment: your willingness to pay and your ability to pay. I think this is preferable, since it allows me to make choices for myself (to the extent that I am able to pay).
Exactly what part of "Anything that puts more power in the hands of politicians takes power away from you" did you not understand? I think maybe you are the moron. There is more than one way to needlessly give away your freedom.
"Nothing more socialist than purchasing your insurance from a private insurance company."
Are you compelled by law to buy the insurance? That's a needless encroachment on your freedom. Are you forced into a "single payer" system? That's socialism.
For those of you who don't know, nationalize is a codeword that socialists use denote the taking of property by the government. It's similar to emminant domain, except that it is done in the name of "equality and fairness" rather than "the greater good". Of course, in reality it is done as various groups struggle to gain power for their own selfish or egotistical purposes (emminant domain is also usually used in this way).
That's why you should be wary of the new "national health care" craze. Anything that puts more power in the hands of pollitions takes power away from you, even if they say they're taking it from some rich guy or some corporation. Don't trust pollitions who promise easy answeres and unlimited financial or personal security. They will take whatever authority you give them, and they won't deliver on their promises (even if they honestly intend to try).
I thought there just had to be reason to believe the evidence was about to be destroyed. In cases of digital copyright infringement I would think this is always the case. Maybe they just need to find a more reasonable judge.
I think you mean Science!
In all fairness, maybe people would care about science more people would stop using "science" to make poor public policy decisions (such as the RDA on sodium, or the endangered species act). Science can be useful, but it's often used by politicians to push a separate agenda. That is to the detriment of science. It doesn't help that you have liberal nut-job groups like the "Union of Concerned Scientists" who put the word in their fucking name, even though they have nothing to do with science.
You would not believe how hard it is to convince fellow Christians to pursue scientific endeavors. They all fear the discrimination and ostracism they will face in the field. Honestly, I can only stand it because I'm really arrogant and I like to argue.
The main-stream candidates are also more committed to maintaining the status quo. This may sound like a bad thing, but changing a lot of things all at once is much, much worse. It is a testimant to the supreme arrogance of man that almost everyone on this message-board believes they are intellegent enough to make radical, sweeping changes to the government and the economy without killing everyone.
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea. The only approach that works it making small changes over time and working toward your eventual goal. Libertarians should vote for the republican candidate, since he advocates deregulation and reliance on markets. This is not the same as making drugs and porn legal, but it's a step in the right direction.