Ah, hey, for the time being at least I can share my political points.

I won't ever speak for Rook or Sapient or Kelly or Razor or Amanda or anyone.

But hey, cyberspace is a small world. I AM a libertarian. Yeah, I'm sure that is shocking to you all.

Thing is, I don't really support the Libertarian party, not implicitly at any rate. I'm the guy with the little "l". Frankly, there are no candidates that support my agenda, I hate them all - none of them have the balls or ovaries required to lead or effect change. Oh noes - looks like I'll have to vote my conscious again. How sad. That involves getting out of bed, making a decision and doing what I feel is in principle correct.

So, anyway, which of the lesser evils will you vote for this year and sit back and hope things willl get better? I won't be voting for either.

Surprise me, America.

Agreed.

In Tennessee, both Corker and Ford are against stem cells. Fuck 'em all. Do over.

Oh and for the record, I don't expect anyone to endorse my opinions. It's great when they're shared. However, it doesn't do any good for me when all I get is 'witnesses'. lol.

Some contend that the 50% of voters that don't vote are libertarians that don't like politics becuase they know everyone is full of shit and haven't heard of the Libertarian Party.

Also, please start spelling Libertarian correctly. It's really not helping your credibility to call yourself something you can't spell correctly. You keep spelling it "Libertine".

I believe it is the UK that has a ranking system that allows for voting that isn't always two party (I could be wrong about the country this is in, I dunno). They apparently rank each candidate by giving the candidates points on their ballots. Essentially, it is like saying X is my most favoritest, Y is my next favoritist, and Z is a bastard so he gets the bottom of the list! I am not sure what the provisions are for write-ins, but I'm sure there are practical ways to allow for them. There's a name for the system, but I don't remember what it is called. When they vote, after they have ranked their candidates, the ballots are assessed and the most points wins. The system allows for a better view of who is a preferred candidate.

And they don't care because they never hear about Libertarianism and what it's about. The media is all "LOL SOSHELISTS AN THEORCATS NOOBDY ELS EXITSS LOL".

Well, for me at least if you spell it libertine it IS a bit different than Libertarian. I'm a libertine, and use that word to describe myself. I support no particular party. Yes, I identify and tend to support Libertarian candidates, but I hold myself to no party line. I go with the "little L", as it describes me much better. I vote a principled line, and party affiliation has little to do with it.

Mises.org is a site about free-market economics, one of the prominent economists featured there, Murray Rothbard, wrote the Libertarian Manifesto. I'd have directed you to the Libertarian Party website except that the LRC gutted the platform. The only really good way I can think of to learn about Libertarianism is to talk to libertarians, find out what they think and why. There's such a great variety and degree of libertarians. Handling large numbers of libertarians is a lot like herding cats, because libertarians generally don't want to be told what to do and disagree on how much government is really necessary. So there's really no authoritative comprehensive site on libertarianism that most libertarians will agree with.

What libertarians think can be summed up easily: They oppose increases in government and support decreases in government.

How far it goes depends on the individual libertarian. I personally take it so far as to say that government is an illegitemate cult, some take it lightly, like Neal Boortz, who generally wants small government but supports wars and such, there's Minarchists like YN5, Objectivists are a type of minarchist, those libertarians think government should be limited to courts, police, and military, and people in between and outliers to all those points.

Then you're a little more minarchist than most minarchists.

Get the book "Adventures in Legal Land" by Marc Stevens. Hilarious book. You'll change your mind about public courts completely after reading it (and probably before you're done). I love the way he makes fun of bureaucrats. Here's a video of him on TV. He proves that nations don't exist by using the definition of "nation" against itself, and tells stories of how he pissed off a lot of judges by making them contradict themselves.

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/interview.mov

Aside from that, courts would have to be aggressive to maintain the monopoly they have at present, keeping other courts from cropping up to supplant them, which violates the non-aggression principle. I don't see how a principled libertarian can advocate aggression to keep a certain set of courts in power. Giving monopoly privilige to a single set of courts gives you all the problems that arise from monopoly - inefficiency, poor service, high prices, et cetera. This is made much worse in the case of monopoly courts where you'd get judges giving preferential treatment, accepting bribes, and generally being corrupt, while deciding whether you go to jail or get sentenced to death. I hope you'll excuse me for not wanting to trust that service to a monopoly.

I think they made a movie about that, they called it Brewster's Millions