Great comments Mike. I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying in principle, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. I think its important that we look at our political system as it applies to the "spoils system" or "winner take all" system.

In our system an individual votes for a specific person, and if that person gets a majority of the votes, they are elected. In various European systems, individuals vote for a platform. How ever many votes that particular platform gets, results in how many seats they receive in the legislature. I would not prefer this system, despite the fact that it gives third parties a real opportunity to sit in the legislature. I prefer our system where people are voting directly for a person.

I think it is difficult to claim that one party has the best interest of the nation at heart while the other one does not. Parties are made up of people like any other civic organization, and as such are prone to corruption. I do not believe that the libertarian party would be any different given an equal amount of time in power. Therefore I must vote for a party based off of its platform, and work to ensure that said platform is adhered to.

I do not agree with the libertarian party position on the war in iraq. I have a hard time agreeing with their position on the legalization of drugs. Last time I checked, I would also have a hard time with their position on homosexual marriage and abortion. It is for these reasons that I cannot fully support teh Libertarian party. Despite the fact that I agree with them on many points concerning economics and individual liberty.

I applaud your dedication to limited government and I share the same view.

Unfortunately, the “people� she refers to are in the 2 big parties who have ruled and have gotten us to where we are now.

Blaming them alone is childish, don't you think? They aren't "rulers"...we elect them. We tell them what we want...some of us are better at prssing them than are others. One of the reasons that the two parties have failed is that dedicated people like you get frustrated and leave thus weakening the limited government position within the party. In the process you also marginalize your own voice and vote, giving the further impression that you are on the fringe. Indeed many of those who join the libertarian ranks have radical ideas and are libertarian only because of those single issue ideas.

We have come to this place in America over many years. We have come to this place in small gradual bites...we will not return to limited government by any other means. We must be willing and satisfied to take as much as we can get in a direction toward limited government...it's frustrating but true. To accomplish this we must first win and then we must press for what we can get in the direction we wish to go.

It's important to remember that libertarians are people too. There is no guarantee that once elected they would have a better chance of effecting the changes you desire. They are subject to the same weaknesses and failings as anyone else. They would have to work within the system and Washington is full of tangled webs, red tape, and alliances. A strong party with a sound sense of purpose supported by strong party members has a chance to effect change but even they will run amok in their attempts to make progress. Our government was designed this way...so that it would be difficult to make changes...it's not surprising that the process is tedious.

It is the people that have let this happen. The road back is long and winding and requires patience, dedication, determination and the good sense to play within a party that has some chance of effecting the wanted changes.

Why do you think there are so many billions of dollars thrown at the politicians in Washington and Sacramento?

You are absolutely right about this, it's because government is too intrusive in our affairs. But it's a catch 22 that you libertarians cannot wiggle out of no matter how much you want it. Libertarians cannot win because they have no power. They have no power because they have failed to sell their ideas and attract the kind of backing and support that makes them big players. You're a football "team" with a couple of jerseys and a helmet, standing on the sidelines at the superbowl yelling, "let us play" to the crowd. I sympathize but also know, at least for now, you cannot hope to compete.

Educating our young may be the very best hope for the future. Our children must be taught the value of freedom and the beauty of limited government. They must be taught self-reliance and civil responsibility. There are a good many republicans and libertarians who are dedicating their time and resources to this end. It may, in fact, be a more satisfying place to play in this game of wishing to put America back together again.

Last thing and then I'll sush...it's easy to sit out here with our principles slamming our leaders...and quite another to be a player in the game. We Americans are very good at finding fault and really lousy at true support. If we were half as dedicated as we say we are we'd be writing letters weekly or monthly at least. i'm not sure but I believe that's what ronald Reagan did and look how far he got!

Do you see how it is Mr. Wacker? Mr. Freitas makes it very plain.

I mean, what would the world be, were everyone left to their own devices. It don't bear thinking about. Christo-Judean order! This is the thing!

I did love the bit about personality over policy. Adolph Hitler, here we come. The Republic is doomed, as I have asserted once or twice before.

Libby.

lol...once again, I have to say WELCOME BACK LIBBY!!! Nobody ever quite says it like our friend Libby.

Actually this is my second "Welcome". There is another on a different topic I posted yesterday.

I see Libby is coming right out of the gate with the same incoherent attack.

If I were to respond any more stringently than this she would accuse me of being mean.

I'd make a more interesting comment on Libby's comment if it had a coherent point. The reference to Hitler is understandable...perhaps she's been listening to Mrs Clinton, the cookie baker, or one of the other meddling control freaks in that party of the "tolerant".

Name the "Christo-judean order" that would be the most intolerable for our society...that would be interesting.

Ah Libby… Let’s see, you asked “What would the world be, were everyone left to their own devices.� If you’re talking about people being free to choose what they do with their own earnings, their own bodies, their children’s education, their religious beliefs, etc… Yes, that sounds pretty good to me. If you’re referring to anarchy, then I don’t support this nor do most of the libertarians that I know. We believe that we should have strong laws to protect people from victimizing others by injuring them, killing them, polluting their air or water or stealing their property. What you may not understand though is what goes along with this. It’s called personal responsibility. We believe that capable adults should be responsible for themselves and for the consequences of their own actions. You see, libertarians believe it is not right for our “noble� politicians to forcibly steal (though taxes, etc.) from one person to give (through subsides or handouts) to another person, group or corporation. Certainly, there are people who genuinely need help temporarily or permanently, we Americans have proven time and time again that we are glad to generously help the unfortunate through charities, religious organizations and as individuals.

Alas, there are some of you people who don't believe in personal freedom, a free market or the generous goodness of most of our people. It seems that instead, you would rather have BIG government forcibly take a BIG part of our earnings and our property and give it to BIG bureaucracies to waste a BIG part of it to and supposedly spend a LITTLE of it on some cause that you and some politicians think it “should� be spent on. No thankyou!

Libby asserts:

Adolph Hitler, here we come. The Republic is doomed, as I have asserted once or twice before.

But later, on another post, she says:

Thankfully, we live in a county where you can be in the minority and live, more or less, unmolested. Praise be to the Goddess.

Gosh she lives "unmolested" and manages to give praise to whomever she wishes...but the Republic is dommed?

Nick said: "In our system an individual votes for a specific person, and if that person gets a majority of the votes, they are elected. In various European systems, individuals vote for a platform. How ever many votes that particular platform gets, results in how many seats they receive in the legislature. I would not prefer this system, despite the fact that it gives third parties a real opportunity to sit in the legislature. I prefer our system where people are voting directly for a person."

It sounds like personality over policy to me. (The Adolph crack was perhaps a bit much.) These last few years have got a lot of people thinking that the parlimentary system may have some decided advantages over what we got working (or not working) here. The parlimentary system absolutely requires coalition building, real politiking. And any time anybody gets too big for his britches, you "no confidence" the guy and form a new government. It's a messy, but much more responsive form of government.

And then Nick said: "I do not agree with the libertarian party position on the war in iraq. I have a hard time agreeing with their position on the legalization of drugs. Last time I checked, I would also have a hard time with their position on homosexual marriage and abortion. It is for these reasons that I cannot fully support teh Libertarian party. Despite the fact that I agree with them on many points concerning economics and individual liberty."

And this all sounds very Christo-Judean to me. So the homosexuals wanna get married. Big deal. You're all for individual liberty, you say, but only on your terms, i.e., the women in the kitchen, the homos in the closet, and the beer in the fridge. Hummpphh.

So the homosexuals wanna get married. Big deal. You're all for individual liberty, you say, but only on your terms, i.e., the women in the kitchen, the homos in the closet, and the beer in the fridge.

The homosexuals want to change the definition of a word and open the door to any old Union is a marriage...they are currently subject to the same advantages and limitations as anyone else with regard to a well defined word of historic agreement. They can form "unions" and make legal contracts all day long and we have shown that being "out" is no big deal and as long as they don't step on other's toes in a beligerant and intolerant manner they will be left to their own choices. It's difficult to take the assertions you make about "terms" when you are demanding terms of your own be forced on others who disagree...and not through legislative process but by decree in the judicial. Beer in the fridge? Now that's just too offensive and wrong....or is it yet another angry feminist, petty bullpucky, nit picking rant against a decidedly stereotypical portrait of men? I thought so.

Mike, I have to suggest that human history, to date, does not support your position about the noble generosity of your average human being. It's sad, and we're working on it, but it's also kind of irrefutable.

But one of the ways we're working on this is to form organizations, be they governments or charities, to redress the deficiencies in our natures and our society.

And governments have theoretically evolved to the point (from monarchies to republics, for instance) where we're suppose to be able to demand accountablity from our representatives ... but we don't do it. For instance, Wally Herger has aided and abetted an American corporation, Dyncorp, in the thieving of many millions of dollars of taxpayer monies, but has he been removed from office? He has not. Your community couldn't even scrounge a creditable conservative, liberal, anything ... to run against him. Pitiful, I call it. And if we can't manage even this, Libertarianism is a long, long way off.

Libby

Tina, why even bother arguing with her?

Did I say anything about women in the kitchen? Or keeping "homos" in the closet, etc. etc.

No, of course I didn't, because I don't believe those things, but arguing with Libby means having to constantly correct her statements.

She purposefully lies about what you say to put you on the defensive. It is exhausting trying to reason with her, because she feels that the rules of honest discourse should only apply to us.

Nick...it's not arguing...just exercising free expression, for my own benefit and, for the terrific group of readers to this blog. We speak to the greater audience and learn by being listeners ourselves. It's a win win...I value the process even when it frustrates. Think of it as training...much like the mud and heat and sand and sweat and aches and exhaustion you experience in military training.
:-D

Mike I agree with all you have said regarding personal responsibility and non-intrusive government...the ideals you express are consistant with the ideals of every republican I know. Where we may disagree is on the determining factors for "strong laws to protect" our people.

This is what the debate and law- making process are about. We won't always get our way and that's not easy to take but if we can't accept that we will never move beyond feeling helpless.

I think we were beter off when the laws were simple and people were content to mind their own business and treat each other with respect...from a distance if there was disagreement. We have moved away from that. Education of the people, including "enrollment" behind our ideas must happen before any change at the top can be expected.

For instance, Wally Herger has aided and abetted an American corporation, Dyncorp, in the thieving of many millions of dollars of taxpayer monies, but has he been removed from office?

Libby, I suggest that if you have proof of this assertion you should come forward with it and present it to the appropriate authorities.

If not , I suggest you refrain from viscious personal attacks and rumor mongering.

Thanks, Nick for your insightful and considerate comments. You brought up a number of really good points. Since a number of other people may wonder about these, I’ll try to address them as best I can. You deserve a well thought out reply (unlike Libby).

You’re right in that we sort of have a winner take all system. However, the way they win sometimes is by adopting (usurping) ideas and draining away votes from the “third� parties. A great example of this was in the victorious Republican sweep of congress in 1994 when they had the “Contract with America�. The “Contract� was largely a point by point copy of reforms that were being proposed by United We Stand America and Ross Perot. And Newt and the Republicans at the time did what they promised in the “Contract�. It was a great example of how a “third� party measurably benefited the American people. You might say that they didn’t get elected, but their ideas did.

You mentioned that “Parties are made up of people like any other civic organization, and as such are prone to corruption. I do not believe that the libertarian party would be any different given an equal amount of time in power.� There is a difference between the 2 big parties and the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians want a whole lot less government. If we actually gave a lot less power, money and control in Washington, then there would be a lot fewer corrupting influences. If “Absolute power corrupts absolutely� then, hopefully a lot less power will be a lot less corrupting.

As far as the Libertarian party positions you mentioned, I’ll try to cover each that you mentioned. (You can read the party platform at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml )

• The war in Iraq – People in the Libertarian party are divided about the war. This seems to be the case also in the Democratic and Republican ranks also. The platform certainly says nothing about the Iraq war. It’s plank on foreign affairs does state “American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil.� When we were about to invade Iraq, myself and a lot of libertarians felt, as I think Jack did, that this was a necessary thing to do to defend our country. We supported our President. We were very publicly active in the streets and media to squelch the Bush hating, vicious anti war, anti American element of the anti war group that was demonstrating in this town.
• As far as the legalization of drugs I think we would be hypocritical if, on the one hand we advocate individual freedom and self responsibility and on the other we support drugs being treated any differently than say alcohol. “Individuals should have the right to use drugs (and alcohol), whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others’ rights.� The other problem with criminalizing all these various drugs (some of which are certainly less harmful than others) is that it promotes a lot of crime. Their illegality makes results in the profits being so huge that it’s an incentive for drug dealers to get people to be users. Big money also leads to big crimes and big violence. Remember, we tried prohibition of alcohol. It didn’t work and it spawned all kinds of crime and violence so we repealed it. The “War on Drugs� is no different. The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves.
• Abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion. Certainly there must be laws to protect human life. It seems that we should have a law addressing the issue of when human life begins even though there is disagreement even among various religions.

This has been mostly about issues that, on the surface, we may not agree on. There’s probably a heck of a lot of issues we do agree on. It would probably be productive to look at what the most important issues are. There could be a lot of common ground. I’m sure none of us agree with all of the official platforms of our respective parties.

Tina: "Libby, I suggest that if you have proof of this assertion you should come forward with it and present it to the appropriate authorities."

Goodness. All you have to do is look at the man's voting record. Billions voted away, and virtually no oversight in any of these bills. Absolute scandal is what it is. But we was all to terrified of the terrorists to even be rational, let alone exercise our responsiblity to hold these clowns accountable for what they do.

We must consider what ACTIONS an individual can take to roll back the Big Intrusive Government. â„¢
I have two small suggestions:
1) Do not fear. Government and media extort resources by keeping the public constantly alarmed. They never let the facts stand in the way of a scary story.
2) Constantly communicate with your � elected representatives�. Keep an eye on what they are up to and let them know when they get carried away. I have found an easy way to do this is with “DownsizeDC.org� they have worked out a way to post to the representatives web sites and have helped ward off some bad legislation.
BTW Nice Blog Jack
Bill

Thank you Mike for your response. If we were to talk about those issues where I agree with the Libertarian Party, we could go on and on. I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman. I would like to go over some of the issues we have been talking about.

Illegal Narcotics- I have to admit that this is an issue I have been struggling with a great deal lately. Because your logic and reasoning is spot on in your argument. My position on this used to be very clear to me. After hearing the arguments of Milton Friedman and others, I must admit that I am not so sure anymore. I do not believe that our country could survive such a change with the current welfare and medical system we have. Those things would have to change first for me to support legalizing drugs.

War in Iraq- I determined by looking at the Libertarian Party webs site that they were oppose to the war. I agree that there is dissension in all of our ranks, but the Libertarian leadership seems to be predominately against the war. However, they seem to be the only anti-war individuals who are able to emphasize their honest support for the troops at the same time. Unfortunately, "supporting the troops, but not the war" does little for the troops or the war.

Abortion- If the abortion issue was still a question of when life begins I would understand some confusion. Unfortunately the science on this is in, and abortion IS the (as CATO called it in his post), "the systematic destruction of innocent human life." The question of life in this question has been decided by science, not religion. Libertarians are supposed to support government action which prevents innocent parties from being harmed. I do not believe that there is any clearer case of the government failing to do its job than in the case o abortion. I simply cannot allow anyone to settle for the "individual choice" on this issue. We do not accept our neighbor killing someone we know as a "personal choice" issue. Well principle y there is nothing different, so one must pick a side.

I would love to see Libertarian principles governing the economy. And I certainly agree with Libertarian principles concerning the importance of federalism etc. I do think that we have gone in the wrong direction so long, that if Libertarians were to take control, they should start with their economic principles (Less taxes, less handouts, etc.) before going after some of their other issues.(Narcotics, etc.)

And you do make a strong case, that Libertarians, if in power, would be less corrupt, since their purpose would be to lessen the role of the federal government. But I would remind you that the Republicans have campaigned on this as well. Granted, they have not made it as central as Libertarians, but people are people, politicians are politicians, and the government keeps growing. It would be absurd of me to argue that Libertarians would be just as prone to larger government in the beginning. I simply wonder how the effects of power might change them.

I must say though, that the abortion issue is incredibly important to me. I look on it as one of the greatest blots on American honor. And I will not be able to support a party that does not take a very clear position against it.

I do have one more question, is the Libertarian party against conscription?

Thanks again Mike, I'm learning a great deal.

I understand your intent Tina, but you and Jack know better than anyone the amount of time and effort I have put into research, and responses to Libby's questions, and accusations; only to have her depart with some flippant, arrogant remark.

Mike Wacker and I are debating issues as well. We disagree on some pretty fundamental things, yet we are able to offer rational arguments, as oppose to head hunting and misrepresenting what the other believes.

This is debate. With Libby, its constantly correcting her either ignorant, or deliberate efforts to misrepresent what you say. When that is finally achieved, she runs from the discussion throwing insults and unverifiable accusations the whole way.

When Libby is confident enough in her positions that she doesn't feel she has to misrepresent mine, Id be happy to hear her out, until then shes all yours. Ive gone up to 30 comments with her on various topics only to have her reappear later as if the debate never took place.

Bill, thanks for chiming in and welcome to the blog!

Yep, we have fun here and we reach thousands of people, so it's a pretty big podium for whatever you have to say.

Speaking of, you raised two very good points that we all need to do, don't be afraid to stand up to big government and stay in touch with your representatives. Our opinions keep them grounded in reality, or should I say, it keeps them from getting too drunk on that power in D.C.

I appreciate your tip about... DownsizeDC.org, I'll check them out!

Oh, please ... yet again. The anti-abortion crusade has nothing to do with "when life begins." It has everything to do with keeping women in the kitchen ... under thumb.

The anti-homo crusade is bald-butted bigotry. Deprived of the commies, the Bigotry Brigade has fasten on the homosexual community. If it weren't for the bludgeonings and murder, it would be downright laughable.

Evolve! Would you please!

I would be interested to hear your thoughts Mike.

Libby says: Mike, I have to suggest that human history, to date, does not support your position about the noble generosity of your average human being. It's sad, and we're working on it, but it's also kind of irrefutable.

I wouldn't worry to much about this Mike. She probably got this historical "fact" from the same history book that told her that guerrilla warfare started about 100 years ago in South America.

I appreciate your position Nick...as I've said before you guys must go absolutely bug-eyed sometimes, so I'll gladley take this on wo-man to wo-man...at least for awhile. Libby said:

Oh, please ... yet again. The anti-abortion crusade has nothing to do with "when life begins." It has everything to do with keeping women in the kitchen ... under thumb.

You're stuck in a 30 year old female "whaaaa...they won't let me play." rant. It's old and boring. Men never did keep women in the kitchen, women chose to be there. There are too many examples of women accomplishing great things prior to the "movement" for that garbage to fly. And, in fact, men can't even get a meal prepared at home today. Way too much of the time they aren't even treated civily. Furthermore, if you don't get that men are easy creatures to get along with, you haven't bothered to get to know them. The good ones will do anything for you, that is, if you're willing to give up the ***ch act ... and they can be a lot of fun too. Lighten the h**l up.

,i>The anti-homo crusade is bald-butted bigotry. Deprived of the commies, the Bigotry Brigade has fasten on the homosexual community. If it weren't for the bludgeonings and murder, it would be downright laughable.

Your remarks about attitudes toward the gay communitiy show an incredible degree of ignorance and a certain bigotry of your own...but you wouldn't "judge" anyone...not you. Here's a hint for you, a difference of opinion is not hatred or bigotry...intelligent people all know this regardless their sexual orientation.

A lot of folks are harmed by criminals and thugs for a variety of reasons...a lot of folks need to get over themselves and just go ahead and live their lives. The sixties hippy dippy "cause carp"...yes I misspelled it...is tiring self-important garbage. If there is a crusade it was begun by the "cause" people who can't seem to just get on with living...the radicals are the most intolerant people I've ever incountered. The only thing between them and happiness is their cause.

Evolve! Would you please!

Evolve yourself...we're all the way up to the two thousands now.

Bill, I'd like to add my thanks for your comments and the website referral. We can debate all day long but contacting those who can actually do something about problems is key...that is, if we really want to have some effect.

One more for Libby,

All you have to do is look at the man's voting record. Billions voted away, and virtually no oversight in any of these bills.

OK, let's entertain your proposition...lets look at the voting record of all democrats for the past 60 years with respect to the trillions and trillions they have confiscated and spent while at the same time lining the pockets of their favorite "associates". The "rules" must apply to all equally and I'll bet my pubbies would fair much better than your dems hands down.