While it can be argued that many libertarian positions are not very realistic, their basic guiding principle, that the federal government is way to big, is the correct one.

The federal government's stewardship of the taxpayer's money has become a complete embarrasment. How is it possible that an entity can take in 2 trillion dollars of "revenue" per year, yet still constantly fall into massive debt? Surely it must be one of the great mysteries of all time. It is a testimony to a failed system. How disappointing it is that more people don't realize this.

Unfortunately, neither candidate offers much in the way of fixing this broken system. Bush has taken big government to a new level, per household federal spending is the highest since WWII, which is amazing when you think how much bigger the country is. His list of big government accomplishments is long and dubious: Patriot Act, Iraq, farm bill, dept. of education, trillion dollar new medicare entitlement, 18% rise in discretionary spending.

Kerry, of course, proposes some kind of government program for every problem. His list of proposed programs is equally long and dubious. How can you vote for someone who so believes in a failed system?

Big government liberalism has failed us all. Entitlement spending increases every year; more and more people fall into poverty. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been pumped into the department of education; standards have drastically declined since the 60's. Billions are spent on bailing out farmers each year; each year there are less farmers to bail out. Billions and billions of foreign aid dollars have been doled out to third world countries: not a single one has been lifted out of the third world.
It's time to stop condemning people who realize this; it's time to start looking for new solutions. Unfortunately, in my opinion, neither candidate offers much in the way of new solutions.

Yes.

the libertarian candidate is also pro-life

His loss.

If he plans on making laws that way, so much for his anti-big-government stance.

You don't get much more "big government" than regulating what women can do with their own bodies.

What a walking contradiction.

Is he pro-life in terms of personal conviction, or what he will propose in terms of legislation? I ask this because the two are not always the same. Personally, I disagree with abortion, but I would follow a pro-choice course of action in terms of governing.

No he ain't.


According to Michael Badnarik's website, he:

Will veto any legislation restricting a woman's right to choose

Although, he will also:

Oppose tax funding for abortion

Oppose federal mandates that require companies provide abortion as a health care benefit

In general, he:

Opposes government control over abortion

Yea, and leave it up to cousin Billy Bob with his frog disecting kit.

Actually, medicaid hasn't paid for abortions since 1976, it's not exactly a new concept.
It's a simple idea; you want an abortion, you pay for it.

I'm thinking about registering Libertarian. Or should I register with one of the other two and just vote Libertarian?

Depends on your state.

Yeah, here in Idaho you don't have to register with a party to vote in the primary. I really like that, because sometimes the primary is more important than the general election, regardless of party. Plus, you don't get the stigma of being labeled with a certain party.

As far as the Libertarian Party goes, I've thought that they've been a big joke for quite some time--they're always shooting way too high. I'd rather see someone on the inside of the GOP or Dems try to subvert the direction of the party in a libertarian manner.

I've actually changed party affiliations.
I'm now a member of the Prohibition Party.
Those libertarians are out and out whackos.

Yeah, same in AZ. I registered independent, so I can choose which primary to vote in. Kinda nice.

Well, I haven't even registered as anything.

So, you're not certifiable

The governmental system is perfect for the incumbant GOP and Democrats. Why would they want to change? They get elected because of it, and theres big money in that for them. None of our politicians desire change. How much did Bush speak on Tax Reform in the current SOTU. None, not a breath. They don't care. The only way change gets done is if we vote out all of the people in power. Is that a lofty goal? Certainly, but how long are we going to continue to sign over our money and our rights to a small group of ass holes who think they know how to better spend them than we do?

Hell, vote Donner Party.....

Not even to vote?

Historically this is what major third parties have done - forced one of the big two to take on some of their policies. I would love to see a Republican party that was more traditionally conservative - at least economically. If enough Republican voters jump ship to the Libertarian party, then maybe this'll happen.

If it weren't for Libertarians' laissez faire approach to the environment and their "live and let die" approach to poverty, I could support them.

A friend of mine once called Libertarians "Republicans who smoke pot".

They'd really rather you didn't call them that