As I said, it really comes down to splitting hairs but...Gw can't make me go to church, or stop me from smoking pot, or stop me from having an abortion (as a male, that would really hurt!). On the other hand, the Democrats could, and would... You name it!!!

I didn't vote in the poll, I'm still undecided.

None of them are very libertarian at all. The problem from my PoV is how to get to a situation where individual liberty is maximized. Is that best achieved by leaving Bush in office, or by removing him? I'm not sure. I do think Bush is more libertarian than any of the Dems in the race, but what's the most libertarian government as a whole? It might just be that a divided government would be better, since GOP Congresscritters only seem to have a spine when they're in opposition, and since we need other elements of the GOP (real conservatives, moderates and libertarians as opposed to the "compassionate conservatives" and neocons) to regain power within the party.

Interesting point!-"Gridlock is Good". But isn't that risky with the Socialists salivating at the gate?(that's another question, am I breaking the rules-sorry if I am... please advise!).

Yes, it is risky, but being risk-averse is rarely a good strategy; that goes in business, games theory and military history, and I'd guess it applies to politics as well.

Another strategic question: is liberty best maximized by even trying to influence the contest between the Dems and Reps, or by putting our efforts into promoting the LP? Or is the LP a lost cause? That's another question I'm undecided on. One thing I'll want to see before I decide on that is who the LP nominee will be.

If my state winds up being firmly in the Dem column (as happened last time), with no prospect of my being able to affect my state's electoral votes, then there's no downside to my voting LP, is there?

(Nope, I don't see any rules violations here.)

I do not see how you can reward the Republicans for the last four years. I believe, as Izdaari mentioned, the Republicans in Congress only hold Democratic Presidents government spending in check. Living in Texas I can vote Libertarian with no qualms, if I lived in a battleground state I would , at this time, vote for a Democrat for the first time since I was too young to know better in '76. In 92, Bush 1' s political base did not show up. Obviously Bush II took no lesson from that. Unless he believes cutting taxes is enough. I need to see spending and taxes cut. Not huge, irresponsible growth in the budget and deficits.

Also on foreign intervention, I am no neo-con. I don't think increasing our presence in the world reduces the odds that we will suffer a terrorist attack. In fact the opposite is true.

I am a Republican aswell as a Libertarian so you know where I stand.

I don't think strong social agendas will ever translate into strong social legilsation so I only vote for people based on their economic policy.

Bush has the more libertarian economic policy by far. Though he has been a big spender, you have to give him credit for keeping the American economy together. He has been through the dot-com bubble burst and following recession, corporate scandals, the energy crisis, 9/11, and the war in Iraq.

I can see why he would want to pass a medicare bill, though. The Dems have sold the ignorant masses socialism without even telling them what it is or explaining to them the consequences of it. Now half the American people demand socialist programs as almost inalienable rights. He is just trying to steal the Dems' thunder, I strongly disagree with it though.

I think it really depends on what issues matter more to you, as a person. Some Libertarians are all about civil liberties, some are all about economic policy, some are a combination of the two or something else entirely.

Myself, I consider civil liberties to be paramount. To me, if I have a choice between surrendering a little more of my hard-earned cash, or having John Ashcroft laying in between me and my wife in bed, I'll hold my nose and vote for a democrat. They certainly infringe on civil liberties as well, but in my opinion, not as much.

I'm definitely voting for Kerry this election.
The Patriot Act, as well as just about every single action of John Ashcroft, shows that Bush has no respect for civil liberties. His support of the Musgrave amendment, and opposition to medical marijuana, shows that Bush goes against civil liberties out of pure mean-spiritedness, with no positive end goal to justify it.

Neither party is willing to stand up for the rights of the people, but this administration has turned the Republican party farther away from recognizing personal freedom than the Dems currently are.

I agree, I belive in the LP on personal freadoms and civil liberties. I don't on "open borders" and I think they want to cut the government too far.

Some things (water, power, roads, police, fire, military) are best done by the government becuse private actors can't be trusted. When you own basic infrastructure, you can use your power to extort money from the rest of the economy (see CA energy "crisis").

Back to our topic: B vs. K

Bush:


• Patriot Act
  
  
• Tracking all bank and CC transactions (no warrent)
  
  
• Permeniet "Rove-ing" wire taps (if a criminal ever used your phone they can tap it indefinatly).
  
  
• Attacking FOIA (best law we ever passed)
  
  
• Attack on abortion rights
  
  
• Attack on pot & med-pot using "anti-terrorism" laws
  
  
• Attack on disfavored political groups using 1800's laws
  
  
• Attack on lawer/client privlage
  
  
• Attack on the right to have a lawer
  -- US citizens can now "dissapear" like we were in the USSR!
  
  
• Appointing about a hundred Reich-wing "activist judges" who are younger then ever.
  
  

Kerry:


• Will probubly ban smoking in more places, and smoking bans _are_ stupid.
  
  
• Might snoop in our banking to stop tax cheating (but this is already done for "anti-terrorism").
  
  

Am I missing something?


And 1st-term presidents don't feel they can anger people as much as 2ed-term Presidnets.
Considering what Bush has done 1st-term, I don't want to know what he will do in a 2ed-term!

Yes.. Socialized Medicine. As we all know it is a lot easier to fight an unconstitutional law than it is to even reform a social program. Once socialized medicine is instituted you might as well call us Canada.

I'm voting Republican this year.. God help me...

I did not vote in the poll. Here is why:

I am a Libertarian. As a matter of principle (seeing as I am a member of the party of principle) I do not participate in polls that exclude Libertarian choices. I feel both Democrats and Republicans are equally evil in their own rights and have no right to put their own form of government control over the citizens of the nation. After all, we ARE citizens, not subjects.

Jim

Well, it was a really tough decision, but I had to put Bush on this one. Basically, he would invade our privacy and impose his moral and religious views on us, while the democrats would give our money to welfare bums, outlaw all forms of guns(and who knows-maybe even non-lethal weapons), dump money into social insecurity, and keep students out of better-run private schools. Its sad that I'm saying this, but I have to say that George W would cause less damage than the dems.

I also see Bush getting the complete blame for the Patriot Act. Need I remind people the Vote in the Senate was 98-1.

I am not sure which party is a greater threat to freedom if they were equally successful in carrying out their agenda. What history has taught me is that civil liberties are often infringed upon in times of crisis, but that the history of the United States is quite progressive in the area of civil liberties. We have come from a homophobic, slave holding, woman oppressing nation (I will leave out the positives of 1791 America for the sake of this post) to a nation where minorities and females have equal (if not better than equal) protection under the law and the futile attempt to prevent gay marriage died a quick death. The fact that Muslim Americans are no where near under the dire straits Japanese-Americans were subjected to in WWII shows what progress we have made in the arena of civil liberties.

Economically speaking, no one can argue we have not had an increasingly tyrannical government in the area of property rights. At least the latest attempt to deny gays equality were legitimate constitutionally. The absurd expansion of the commerce and general welfare clauses to accomodate socialist ideology has rendered the Constitution null and void in many areas.

I think that the way to make libertarians a more viable option for most people is to support instant runoff voting. That way people aren't afraid to "waste their votes". I have friends that lean libertarian but voted for either Bush or Kerry out of pragmatism.

asoko

I prefer tyranny of the masses to tyranny of the corporate boards.
I also think it's easier to teach ecnomics to Democrats than compassion to Republicans, but that's an oversimplification.
I agree that electoral reform would be quite a boon to this country.
A link that pretty much hits my views on the head.
An address given by SF writer David Brin at the 2002 LPNC.