My concern isn't being a crybaby. I'm just pointing out the fact that you would be exposing yourself to such suits.
My concern is being able to use a service that I'm paying big bucks for. You don't have the right to take that away from me just because of a few brats with no manners.
I'm personally more annoyed by people _talking_ during movies. Shall I install a sonic jamming system to prevent verbal conversations? Or, *GASP* I could just ask them to desist and/or complain to management.
Your problem with, oh my phone HAS to be on while I'm in the theater, Because I'm a EMS person. Ummm, pager? Pagers run on a different frequency, just have the jammer disable 800/1900 etc etc.
So if I have a babysitter watching my kids while I'm out with my spouse I need to carry a pager so she can call me in an emergancy?
What the heck is wrong with just asking the theater to enforce the rule and ask offenders to leave? What's next? A sonic jammer that stops people from talking during the movie? Or should we make a law?
Sorry, I'd have a problem even with that. What if one of my kids has an accident and needs to call me? If I'm in the movie theater I'm going to see them calling and step out. Under your scheme I wouldn't even get the call.
The solution is simple -- kick their asses out of your establishment if they abuse it and annoy your other customers. But you don't have the right to punish me.
What is the point here? If you die of a heart attack because your cell phone was jammed, that is somehow worse than dying of a heart attack because your cell phone was left at home due to a ban??? WTF???
Umm, hello McFly? A ban on use. Not on possession. Obviously a private company can't tell me what I can and can not have on my person.
Just because a handful of teenagers blab on the cell phone during the movie doesn't mean you can take away my right to have one on me. My cell phone is on vibrate and if I get a call that's important enough I step out to take it. How is that a problem?
Believe it or don't, most movie theaters have land line telephones!!111:)
I'll remember that as I'm sitting my seat with chest pains and can't even cry out.
You missed the point anyway. The theater would be exposing themselves to lawsuits. That's why it won't happen. And having worked in the insurance industry for a few years I suspect that your insurance company would drop you like a rock if you tried to install these.
Not to mention the minor little fact that somebody paid for the license to the channels that you want to jam and they have a right to expect to be able to use that license....
Cellphones are expensive, leave a substantial paper trail, and are going to be the first thing blocked if anyone figured that's what you were up to. You want a cheap, unjammable, untraceable remote bomb detonator? photovoltaic cell and a laser pointer.
Hmm, never thought of that. That's pretty clever. It'd require a line of sight but you'd probably already need one to watch the target and figure out where to set it off.
This is a perfect example of why this type of "arms race" is foolish. A moderately clever/. poster who isn't even thinking with the mindset of a terrorist figured a way around it in about ten minutes. All this does is cost us more of our rights in the name of protecting them.
I think the telecoms might cooperate without a court order in the case of a bona-fide emergency.
In London they did during the terrorist attacks.
Of course if I was designing a cell phone to act as a bomb trigger I'd probably be smart enough to put a dead-mans switch in it. If it loses signal or loses the ability to make outgoing calls then boom! Have they considered this? If a terrorist is smart enough to use a cell phone as a triggering device then I don't think it's a huge leap of faith to give it the ability to sense when its cut off from home base and go off....
Be a wiseass all you want but you don't have the right to disrupt my communications. I only made the heart attack example as the obvious reason why a movie theater wouldn't install these even if they were legal. They'd be exposing themselves to a massive amount of libility for no real gain.
Ask them to kick the offender out. If they refuse then leave and do a chargeback on your credit card for the tickets. If enough people bitched then they'd enforce the no cell phone rule -- without jammers.
"We had to jam the cell phone network around the meeting of global corporate and political leaders to protect against the threat of a terrorist attack. We realize that this may have hampered the ability of protesters to organize, but we think that safety is more important than the rights of a few extremist anti-globalization fanatics."
Forget the protesters. What if I live near that meeting and rely on a cell phone for my communications? It can be disrupted in the name of "safety"? That's bullshit.
Do local cops currently have the ability to jam landline phones? Didn't think so. If they haven't needed that for a few decades then why do they need it now with cell phones?
Movie theaters don't even have the right to install them. As you pointed out they already have the ability to deal with the problem - BY KICKING THE ASSHOLE OUT!
There's no reason to allow cell phone jammers. I paid for my cell phone. Verizon paid for the licenses to those bands. Both of us have a right to expect that we can use them.
Well I have a serious problem with them. If you don't want cell phones in movie theaters then complain to management until they enforce the cell phone ban by asking people who use them during the movie to leave. That's their right as a property owner. You don't have the right to interfere with my communications though. I rely on my cell phone as my only means of communication (no landline). You don't have the right to jam that.
Oh and I pity the movie theater that installs a jammer and then has a patron have a heart attack in the middle of the movie and die. "We tried to call 911 but we had no signal". I know a few dozen ambulance chasers that would love such a case.
Indeed -- and I love using terrorism as an argument to try and sell something. The minute he played that card I stopped paying attention.
Oh and the likely explaination for law enforcement needing them during a terrorist attack is to prevent the terrorists from using cell phones to trigger bombs. Of course in his haste to sell his product he's overlooking the fact that the Government can simply order the cell phone companies in an area to shut their networks down. They don't need jammers!
Yes, until I explicitly authorize the other landlord to share the information or call DMV and tell them to transmit my records to your insurance company. Of course, you can refuse to rent/insure or I can accept a higher initial rate and get a good reference from you next time around. In addition, it should be illegal for employees to obtain your DMV information unless you are a truck driver.
So basically it's the redundant amendment because we already have privacy laws to protect access to all of this information. The FCRA, DPPA, etc, etc. It's already the case that people can't gain access to this information without your permission. It's already fraud to misrepresent yourself to gain illict access to this information.
Oh and it's not just truck drivers. If you have any cause to drive a company vehicle they'd have a right to look at your DMV record. Though, I'll agree, the use of credit for employment is bullshit and needs to end.
You do realize the contradiction here, right? The reason the LP opposes the sort of regulations you endorsed in the first part is that such regulations run counter to their stance against victimless crimes and encroachment on civil liberties, which you claim to accept "100%".
I fail to see how a zoning law that says you can't put a factory next to my house is a 'crime' or a civil liberty. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Under the LP platform my neighbor can collect 20 dead cars and I can't do anything about it. He can sell his property to a toxic waste dump if he wants to and I can't do anything about it unless I have enough money to make him a better offer.
I suppose that's my basic problem with their approach to economics. There's absolutely no safety net. May the richest man win -- in all things. And while I understand the theory that private owners have an incentive to protect property (to ensure income in the future) recent events don't bear this theory out. Was Enron thinking about the future? Global crossing? It's all about next quarters earnings -- not the future.
As for the food-service health regulations, you would still be perfectly free to hold the restaurant responsible should their negligence cause you any harm.
I'm sure my family will enjoy their fat cash settlement after I die. Seriously. This is one of the basic functions of Government -- protecting the people.
I suspect that most owners would have their restaurants' sanitation certified by a recognized third-party organization even in the absence of such regulation just for the effect it would have on their customer base
Yes, the Underwriters Laboratory theory. I fail to see how making a third-party organization responsible for something the Government is doing will help anybody. Do you know anybody that works in the medical field? JCAHO is a bigger PITA to deal with then any Governmental organization and they charge you up the ass for every single book, CD, session, audit, etc, etc that you need to get their certifications. Why should protecting the public be a for-profit business?
Why shouldn't they be? What value is added by making them subject to the inefficiencies of the government beaurocracy? All that accomplishes, besides driving up the overall cost, is to spread out the cost of building and operating such "public spaces" across the entire population (as opposed to just those who support and/or utilize such projects). Granted, privitization is something that must be done with great care, keeping in mind the fact that while the government (meaning the specific people in power at the time) has no legitimate right to the "public" property, neither does any specific private owner.
Have you ever worked for a large company? Bureaucracy is hardly unique to the Government. This is another area where I suppose we have to agree to disagree. I don't see any compelling reason to take public resources and turn them over to private interests. Your only argument in favor of doing so is that a private interest might be able to manage them cheaper.
Would you agree that the freedom of the press is one of the most important things if our republic is to remain free? With that in mind do you really condone allowing mega-corps (Clear Channel, Gannet, News Corp, etc, etc) to consolidate even more media holdings? Forget weakening what's left of the ownership rules -- I'm sure the LP would advocate getting rid of any and all regulations to this regard. Who is looking out for the people there?
I enjoy discussions like these but I think it underlies the basic problem that I and a lot of other people have with the LP. I'm not ready to abandon every single shred of Governmental oversight and place my faith in the free market to keep me safe. People lobbied their elected officials to put most of these regulations and laws in place for a good reason.
I don't know much about the California legislature, but I doubt they have committees that include half of the legislative body.
Actually they do.... the committee on gerrymandering-to-keep-all-of-our-incumbents-in-po wer is made up of virtually all members of the legislature and is the most successful example of bipartarisan cooperation in California history.
Personally I do see reasons to vote strategically. Even if I agreed with his platform (and I largely don't) I would simply not have been able to bring myself to vote for Nader if I lived in a battleground state and I would have strongly urged any friends of mine not to vote for him.
That said, I do NOT buy into the "wasted your vote" line either because I think that's FUD put out by the DNC or RNC to scare people away from voting for third parties.
That's because the way that states keep ANY party off of the ballot is no less than Consitutionally wrong and simple conspiracy between the Repubs and the Dems.
Maybe in your state. I've read all of the election law in my state and I don't find the requirements for ballot access burdensome. This guy was even able to get on the ballot in our gubernatorial election -- and his campaign publicity stunt consisted of climbing to the top of the Brooklyn Bridge to put up a banner and then threatening to kill himself when the cops tried to talk him down!
In any case I wish the Libertarians in my state would at least try to get some real influence on the process instead of losing election after election and being content with the status quo where most people don't even know who they are or what they stand for. I think the model used by the Working Families Party is as good of a place to start as any. It would at least get them automatic ballot access for a few years and that would encourage people to start debating their platform and what they stand for. How could that be a bad thing?
And neither is the libertarian party. To say that the party is for a complete removal of government from the country is to confuse them with Anarchists.
"Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership."
They are against the concept of zoning laws and public health legislation. So under the Libertarian model I can do whatever I want with my property -- and my neighbor can sell his property to a industrial concern that will cause my property values to drop like a brick. And when did public health legislation become "unduly burdensome"? Are regulations that food service workers wash their hands really a removal of property rights?
"All publicly owned infrastructures including dams and parks shall be returned to private ownership and all taxing authority for such public improvements shall sunset."
Parks and dams serve the people and belong to the people. Why should they be owned by a private concern and operated for profit?
I'm not quoting the parts of the platform that I agree with -- and there are money. I'm just pointing out the parts that a vast majority of Americans would have a problem with. And while I'd acknowledge that not all Libertarian candidates are likely to agree with these objections (just like all Republicans aren't pro-life) it is on the official party webpage and it is a part of their platform.
And please don't assume that I'm attacking the Libertarian Party. I have a great respect for what they stand for and find myself in 100% agreement with them on the "war" on drugs, gun rights, civil liberties, abortion and victimless crime. I'm just pointing out the stances on issues that I'd have to carefully consider before I could vote for a LP candidate.
It's already outlawed without the persons consent (barring exceptions for tracking down deadbeat dads and the lovely "national security" clause, which is BS, but that's another debate). Though I'd agree with making it illegal to use credit as a condition of employment.
In any case I don't know how many times I have to state that it wasn't my intention to start a debate about credit reporting. I was pointing out the first problem I saw with the GPs purposed change to the 4th amendment. He stated:
"The right of The People to Personal Privacy and Security and Control of any information or data directly created by them, or by their indirect acts shall not be infringed by either any Governmental Body, Federal, State, or Local,, OR ANY ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITY created by any act of any Governmental Body."
I bolded the part that raises concern. I am one of the biggest supporters of privacy rights around but you don't see a problem with that? "indirect acts"? Forget credit scoring, what about checking references? You realize that wording would probably make it illegal for me to ask another landlord about his history with a certain tenant? You realize it would outlaw the sharing of DMV information with insurance companies and employers?
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad idea only that something that broadly worded needs to be carefully considered because it will have unintended side effects.
I won't respond to your points one by one because I largely agree with them. I wasn't saying that I wouldn't vote for a Libertarian candidate either. I only wanted to say that I find a combination of Libertarian and leftist (represented by the Democrats in the US) to be personally appealing. Extreme support for civil liberties, gun rights, choice (abortion), Gov't out of the bedroom, these are all things that I support. If you combined them with some center-left economic policies I think you'd have a killer app that would appeal to a broad number of people.
Sometimes I question the way that the Libertarian Party goes out getting it's message out though. New York State has the most liberal electoral fusion laws in the country. Why don't the NYS Libertarian's take advantage of this and borrow a page from the playbook of the Working Families and Conservative Party of NY and try to influence the direction of the Republican and/or Democratic parties? Instead they run someone that I've never heard of (and I'd wadger that I follow politics more closely then 90% of Americans) who doesn't even get enough votes to get them automatic ballot access for future elections.
I would love to see the Libertarian Party gain enough influence to get their ideas out there in public debate. Unfortunately a lot of the Libertarian candidates that I've met would rather blame the Republicans and the Democrats for "shutting them out".
Maybe it'd put a quick end to the whole 'credit culture' that has built up in America and is slowly destroying the national economy.
And I have a problem with the 'credit culture' as well (what's wrong with having the cash for stuff before you buy it and living within your means?) but you are ignoring my point. The point was that when you write something that broad it can have unintended effects.
Want an example on the other side? Did anybody ever think that the social security number would become a national ID number used for everything from employment to taxes to security?
Oh, because the credit history companies have just done an excellent job of protecting our credit histories and protecting us from fraud!
I'm not saying that I really like the credit reporting agencies or that I think current law is good enough to protect us. In fact they scare the hell out of me and I'd change a lot about the way the system works.
But the bottom line is that with one fell swoop the GP just undermined the entire US banking system. That's how broadly his amendment could be interpreted. And that's the point I was trying to make. Credit was just the easiest example.
It's not a bill, but a party. The Libertarian Party is all about the government leaving us alone as much as possible. If that's what you believe, then you should vote Libertarian.
Too bad they take it to the other extreme. Zero regulation of businesses, the complete abandonment of any sort of social safety net and privatising everything are just a few of the disagreements that I have with the Libertarian Party.
Still, I greatly respect their stance on civil liberties. If you could take that plank of their platform and mold it with some of what the actual Democratic party stands for then you might have something that would convince me to change parties. And as a random thought, I really wish the Democrats would start focusing on pulling Libertarians away from the Republican party (most of them are completely disgusted by Bush) instead of focusing on the religious right nutjobs.
The only problem with that is that it will never happen for the same reasons that this bill was killed: it requires politicians to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, instead of what is in the best interests of their reelection campaign (read getting money).
The only problem? His amendment is so broadly worded that it would probably outlaw credit histories as well. Do you lend money to people? Is this something you'd condone?
Likewise, there were probably very compelling reasons not to pass this bill but we won't hear about them because of the four letter word known as the MPAA. Because they got involved I predict the chances of this being a fruitful discussion on/. at 100 to 1 against.
Slashdot Mirror
My concern isn't being a crybaby. I'm just pointing out the fact that you would be exposing yourself to such suits.
My concern is being able to use a service that I'm paying big bucks for. You don't have the right to take that away from me just because of a few brats with no manners.
I'm personally more annoyed by people _talking_ during movies. Shall I install a sonic jamming system to prevent verbal conversations? Or, *GASP* I could just ask them to desist and/or complain to management.
Your problem with, oh my phone HAS to be on while I'm in the theater, Because I'm a EMS person. Ummm, pager? Pagers run on a different frequency, just have the jammer disable 800/1900 etc etc.
So if I have a babysitter watching my kids while I'm out with my spouse I need to carry a pager so she can call me in an emergancy?
What the heck is wrong with just asking the theater to enforce the rule and ask offenders to leave? What's next? A sonic jammer that stops people from talking during the movie? Or should we make a law?
Sorry, I'd have a problem even with that. What if one of my kids has an accident and needs to call me? If I'm in the movie theater I'm going to see them calling and step out. Under your scheme I wouldn't even get the call. The solution is simple -- kick their asses out of your establishment if they abuse it and annoy your other customers. But you don't have the right to punish me.
What is the point here? If you die of a heart attack because your cell phone was jammed, that is somehow worse than dying of a heart attack because your cell phone was left at home due to a ban??? WTF???
Umm, hello McFly? A ban on use. Not on possession. Obviously a private company can't tell me what I can and can not have on my person.
Just because a handful of teenagers blab on the cell phone during the movie doesn't mean you can take away my right to have one on me. My cell phone is on vibrate and if I get a call that's important enough I step out to take it. How is that a problem?
Believe it or don't, most movie theaters have land line telephones!!111 :)
I'll remember that as I'm sitting my seat with chest pains and can't even cry out.
You missed the point anyway. The theater would be exposing themselves to lawsuits. That's why it won't happen. And having worked in the insurance industry for a few years I suspect that your insurance company would drop you like a rock if you tried to install these.
Not to mention the minor little fact that somebody paid for the license to the channels that you want to jam and they have a right to expect to be able to use that license....
Cellphones are expensive, leave a substantial paper trail, and are going to be the first thing blocked if anyone figured that's what you were up to. You want a cheap, unjammable, untraceable remote bomb detonator? photovoltaic cell and a laser pointer.
Hmm, never thought of that. That's pretty clever. It'd require a line of sight but you'd probably already need one to watch the target and figure out where to set it off.
This is a perfect example of why this type of "arms race" is foolish. A moderately clever /. poster who isn't even thinking with the mindset of a terrorist figured a way around it in about ten minutes. All this does is cost us more of our rights in the name of protecting them.
I think the telecoms might cooperate without a court order in the case of a bona-fide emergency.
In London they did during the terrorist attacks.
Of course if I was designing a cell phone to act as a bomb trigger I'd probably be smart enough to put a dead-mans switch in it. If it loses signal or loses the ability to make outgoing calls then boom! Have they considered this? If a terrorist is smart enough to use a cell phone as a triggering device then I don't think it's a huge leap of faith to give it the ability to sense when its cut off from home base and go off....
Be a wiseass all you want but you don't have the right to disrupt my communications. I only made the heart attack example as the obvious reason why a movie theater wouldn't install these even if they were legal. They'd be exposing themselves to a massive amount of libility for no real gain.
Ask them to kick the offender out. If they refuse then leave and do a chargeback on your credit card for the tickets. If enough people bitched then they'd enforce the no cell phone rule -- without jammers.
"We had to jam the cell phone network around the meeting of global corporate and political leaders to protect against the threat of a terrorist attack. We realize that this may have hampered the ability of protesters to organize, but we think that safety is more important than the rights of a few extremist anti-globalization fanatics."
Forget the protesters. What if I live near that meeting and rely on a cell phone for my communications? It can be disrupted in the name of "safety"? That's bullshit.
Do local cops currently have the ability to jam landline phones? Didn't think so. If they haven't needed that for a few decades then why do they need it now with cell phones?
Movie theaters don't even have the right to install them. As you pointed out they already have the ability to deal with the problem - BY KICKING THE ASSHOLE OUT!
There's no reason to allow cell phone jammers. I paid for my cell phone. Verizon paid for the licenses to those bands. Both of us have a right to expect that we can use them.
Well I have a serious problem with them. If you don't want cell phones in movie theaters then complain to management until they enforce the cell phone ban by asking people who use them during the movie to leave. That's their right as a property owner. You don't have the right to interfere with my communications though. I rely on my cell phone as my only means of communication (no landline). You don't have the right to jam that. Oh and I pity the movie theater that installs a jammer and then has a patron have a heart attack in the middle of the movie and die. "We tried to call 911 but we had no signal". I know a few dozen ambulance chasers that would love such a case.
Indeed -- and I love using terrorism as an argument to try and sell something. The minute he played that card I stopped paying attention.
Oh and the likely explaination for law enforcement needing them during a terrorist attack is to prevent the terrorists from using cell phones to trigger bombs. Of course in his haste to sell his product he's overlooking the fact that the Government can simply order the cell phone companies in an area to shut their networks down. They don't need jammers!
Yes, until I explicitly authorize the other landlord to share the information or call DMV and tell them to transmit my records to your insurance company. Of course, you can refuse to rent/insure or I can accept a higher initial rate and get a good reference from you next time around. In addition, it should be illegal for employees to obtain your DMV information unless you are a truck driver.
So basically it's the redundant amendment because we already have privacy laws to protect access to all of this information. The FCRA, DPPA, etc, etc. It's already the case that people can't gain access to this information without your permission. It's already fraud to misrepresent yourself to gain illict access to this information.
Oh and it's not just truck drivers. If you have any cause to drive a company vehicle they'd have a right to look at your DMV record. Though, I'll agree, the use of credit for employment is bullshit and needs to end.
You do realize the contradiction here, right? The reason the LP opposes the sort of regulations you endorsed in the first part is that such regulations run counter to their stance against victimless crimes and encroachment on civil liberties, which you claim to accept "100%".
I fail to see how a zoning law that says you can't put a factory next to my house is a 'crime' or a civil liberty. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Under the LP platform my neighbor can collect 20 dead cars and I can't do anything about it. He can sell his property to a toxic waste dump if he wants to and I can't do anything about it unless I have enough money to make him a better offer.
I suppose that's my basic problem with their approach to economics. There's absolutely no safety net. May the richest man win -- in all things. And while I understand the theory that private owners have an incentive to protect property (to ensure income in the future) recent events don't bear this theory out. Was Enron thinking about the future? Global crossing? It's all about next quarters earnings -- not the future.
As for the food-service health regulations, you would still be perfectly free to hold the restaurant responsible should their negligence cause you any harm.
I'm sure my family will enjoy their fat cash settlement after I die. Seriously. This is one of the basic functions of Government -- protecting the people.
I suspect that most owners would have their restaurants' sanitation certified by a recognized third-party organization even in the absence of such regulation just for the effect it would have on their customer base
Yes, the Underwriters Laboratory theory. I fail to see how making a third-party organization responsible for something the Government is doing will help anybody. Do you know anybody that works in the medical field? JCAHO is a bigger PITA to deal with then any Governmental organization and they charge you up the ass for every single book, CD, session, audit, etc, etc that you need to get their certifications. Why should protecting the public be a for-profit business?
Why shouldn't they be? What value is added by making them subject to the inefficiencies of the government beaurocracy? All that accomplishes, besides driving up the overall cost, is to spread out the cost of building and operating such "public spaces" across the entire population (as opposed to just those who support and/or utilize such projects). Granted, privitization is something that must be done with great care, keeping in mind the fact that while the government (meaning the specific people in power at the time) has no legitimate right to the "public" property, neither does any specific private owner.
Have you ever worked for a large company? Bureaucracy is hardly unique to the Government. This is another area where I suppose we have to agree to disagree. I don't see any compelling reason to take public resources and turn them over to private interests. Your only argument in favor of doing so is that a private interest might be able to manage them cheaper.
Would you agree that the freedom of the press is one of the most important things if our republic is to remain free? With that in mind do you really condone allowing mega-corps (Clear Channel, Gannet, News Corp, etc, etc) to consolidate even more media holdings? Forget weakening what's left of the ownership rules -- I'm sure the LP would advocate getting rid of any and all regulations to this regard. Who is looking out for the people there?
I enjoy discussions like these but I think it underlies the basic problem that I and a lot of other people have with the LP. I'm not ready to abandon every single shred of Governmental oversight and place my faith in the free market to keep me safe. People lobbied their elected officials to put most of these regulations and laws in place for a good reason.
OK, I'll bite. Why wouldn't I want to live in such a state?
Cuz the minute you tell your hot date that you post on /. you can kiss any chance of sex goodbye....
I don't know much about the California legislature, but I doubt they have committees that include half of the legislative body.
Actually they do.... the committee on gerrymandering-to-keep-all-of-our-incumbents-in-po wer is made up of virtually all members of the legislature and is the most successful example of bipartarisan cooperation in California history.
I don't think people in the 40s and 50s envisioned the SSN being a requirement to get phone service. And that's just the easist example I can make....
Personally I do see reasons to vote strategically. Even if I agreed with his platform (and I largely don't) I would simply not have been able to bring myself to vote for Nader if I lived in a battleground state and I would have strongly urged any friends of mine not to vote for him.
That said, I do NOT buy into the "wasted your vote" line either because I think that's FUD put out by the DNC or RNC to scare people away from voting for third parties.
That's because the way that states keep ANY party off of the ballot is no less than Consitutionally wrong and simple conspiracy between the Repubs and the Dems.
Maybe in your state. I've read all of the election law in my state and I don't find the requirements for ballot access burdensome. This guy was even able to get on the ballot in our gubernatorial election -- and his campaign publicity stunt consisted of climbing to the top of the Brooklyn Bridge to put up a banner and then threatening to kill himself when the cops tried to talk him down!
In any case I wish the Libertarians in my state would at least try to get some real influence on the process instead of losing election after election and being content with the status quo where most people don't even know who they are or what they stand for. I think the model used by the Working Families Party is as good of a place to start as any. It would at least get them automatic ballot access for a few years and that would encourage people to start debating their platform and what they stand for. How could that be a bad thing?
And neither is the libertarian party. To say that the party is for a complete removal of government from the country is to confuse them with Anarchists.
To read their official platform leads me to conclude the following:
"Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership."
They are against the concept of zoning laws and public health legislation. So under the Libertarian model I can do whatever I want with my property -- and my neighbor can sell his property to a industrial concern that will cause my property values to drop like a brick. And when did public health legislation become "unduly burdensome"? Are regulations that food service workers wash their hands really a removal of property rights?
"All publicly owned infrastructures including dams and parks shall be returned to private ownership and all taxing authority for such public improvements shall sunset."
Parks and dams serve the people and belong to the people. Why should they be owned by a private concern and operated for profit?
I'm not quoting the parts of the platform that I agree with -- and there are money. I'm just pointing out the parts that a vast majority of Americans would have a problem with. And while I'd acknowledge that not all Libertarian candidates are likely to agree with these objections (just like all Republicans aren't pro-life) it is on the official party webpage and it is a part of their platform.
And please don't assume that I'm attacking the Libertarian Party. I have a great respect for what they stand for and find myself in 100% agreement with them on the "war" on drugs, gun rights, civil liberties, abortion and victimless crime. I'm just pointing out the stances on issues that I'd have to carefully consider before I could vote for a LP candidate.
It's already outlawed without the persons consent (barring exceptions for tracking down deadbeat dads and the lovely "national security" clause, which is BS, but that's another debate). Though I'd agree with making it illegal to use credit as a condition of employment.
In any case I don't know how many times I have to state that it wasn't my intention to start a debate about credit reporting. I was pointing out the first problem I saw with the GPs purposed change to the 4th amendment. He stated:
"The right of The People to Personal Privacy and Security and Control of any information or data directly created by them, or by their indirect acts shall not be infringed by either any Governmental Body, Federal, State, or Local,, OR ANY ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITY created by any act of any Governmental Body."
I bolded the part that raises concern. I am one of the biggest supporters of privacy rights around but you don't see a problem with that? "indirect acts"? Forget credit scoring, what about checking references? You realize that wording would probably make it illegal for me to ask another landlord about his history with a certain tenant? You realize it would outlaw the sharing of DMV information with insurance companies and employers?
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad idea only that something that broadly worded needs to be carefully considered because it will have unintended side effects.
I won't respond to your points one by one because I largely agree with them. I wasn't saying that I wouldn't vote for a Libertarian candidate either. I only wanted to say that I find a combination of Libertarian and leftist (represented by the Democrats in the US) to be personally appealing. Extreme support for civil liberties, gun rights, choice (abortion), Gov't out of the bedroom, these are all things that I support. If you combined them with some center-left economic policies I think you'd have a killer app that would appeal to a broad number of people.
Sometimes I question the way that the Libertarian Party goes out getting it's message out though. New York State has the most liberal electoral fusion laws in the country. Why don't the NYS Libertarian's take advantage of this and borrow a page from the playbook of the Working Families and Conservative Party of NY and try to influence the direction of the Republican and/or Democratic parties? Instead they run someone that I've never heard of (and I'd wadger that I follow politics more closely then 90% of Americans) who doesn't even get enough votes to get them automatic ballot access for future elections.
I would love to see the Libertarian Party gain enough influence to get their ideas out there in public debate. Unfortunately a lot of the Libertarian candidates that I've met would rather blame the Republicans and the Democrats for "shutting them out".
Maybe it'd put a quick end to the whole 'credit culture' that has built up in America and is slowly destroying the national economy.
And I have a problem with the 'credit culture' as well (what's wrong with having the cash for stuff before you buy it and living within your means?) but you are ignoring my point. The point was that when you write something that broad it can have unintended effects.
Want an example on the other side? Did anybody ever think that the social security number would become a national ID number used for everything from employment to taxes to security?
Oh, because the credit history companies have just done an excellent job of protecting our credit histories and protecting us from fraud!
I'm not saying that I really like the credit reporting agencies or that I think current law is good enough to protect us. In fact they scare the hell out of me and I'd change a lot about the way the system works.
But the bottom line is that with one fell swoop the GP just undermined the entire US banking system. That's how broadly his amendment could be interpreted. And that's the point I was trying to make. Credit was just the easiest example.
It's not a bill, but a party. The Libertarian Party is all about the government leaving us alone as much as possible. If that's what you believe, then you should vote Libertarian.
Too bad they take it to the other extreme. Zero regulation of businesses, the complete abandonment of any sort of social safety net and privatising everything are just a few of the disagreements that I have with the Libertarian Party.
Still, I greatly respect their stance on civil liberties. If you could take that plank of their platform and mold it with some of what the actual Democratic party stands for then you might have something that would convince me to change parties. And as a random thought, I really wish the Democrats would start focusing on pulling Libertarians away from the Republican party (most of them are completely disgusted by Bush) instead of focusing on the religious right nutjobs.
The only problem with that is that it will never happen for the same reasons that this bill was killed: it requires politicians to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, instead of what is in the best interests of their reelection campaign (read getting money).
The only problem? His amendment is so broadly worded that it would probably outlaw credit histories as well. Do you lend money to people? Is this something you'd condone?
Likewise, there were probably very compelling reasons not to pass this bill but we won't hear about them because of the four letter word known as the MPAA. Because they got involved I predict the chances of this being a fruitful discussion on /. at 100 to 1 against.