Vote for who you want, why you want. Want to pass a message to someone, then do it.

That is ultimately what this is all about. The ability of you, to do what you want to do – to elect the people you want, or to vote against the ones you don’t. The people who voted for Nader in 2000 – good for them. That’s what they wanted to do, they should have been able to. As Den Beste has illustrated well, the winner-take all system we have (and have evolved) means basically, there will usually be only 2 parties. (The CA recall being proof of that, in how it was completely different, due to circumstances).

I won’t be voting for Badnarik, because I think he’s a nutcase. I won’t say who I will vote for, and I never discuss who I’ve voted for in the past (That’s why it’s called a Secret Ballot). I have voted for some Libertarian candidates before. I will in the future, I’m sure. But the current one is just as looney as the current Democratic one. Possibly more.

Regardless, Uncle, congrats for making your voice heard.

Congrats, Xrlq, for disagreeing with him.

To quote the great philosopher Smirnov “America. What a country!”

In fact you pissed me off sufficiently that I devote da whole post to you. Well the ideas you spewed forth more than you personally, but you get the idea.

to hit the highlights – the 5th amendment deals with compelled self testimony. Self incrimination would be a subset of that, not merely another way of expressing it.

Throwing a vote away is impossible unless you are saying that only votes for the winner are not thrown away, which would make elections no more politically expedient than gambling.

badnarik may have commited acts which could be prosecuted as crimes, But Bush, Kerry & damn near every public offical have done worse than those you dismiss Badnarik for. Similarly due to the sheer volume & complexity of laws you, I & most other people are probably guilty (albeit in most cases unknowingly) of violating some law.

Badnarik violated laws because he felt they violated his Rights. He risked jail time (if caught) for his principles. Is that different from our founders who committed treason against the then lawful government to start this country? Or the abolitionists who helped run away slaves escape? Or the civil Rights leaders who spent time in jail to make their case?

Lastly I can agree that Badnarik isn’t the best choice the LP had on certain policy issues. I’ll also agree that his stance on Iraq is questionable in some ways. If you’de have stuck to those points instead of the “two party or die” – like rant then I could have spent my time doing something productive instead of defending what shouldn’t have to be defended.

Here, my place or e-mail – you’re welcome to rspond if you feel like continuing the argument.

You may recall from our prior discussions that I too was an LP candidate for Assembly at one point, specifically the 77th District in 1992. I was never entirely comfortable with the LP’s views on foreign policy, but gave them a pass on that issue since the Cold War was over and the need for the U.S. as a superpower was not so obvious as it is now. I’ve never quite understood the logic behind their foreign policy position, anyway. It seems to be based on the notion that our government has no right to initiate force against its citizens, but every other government in the world does have that right against its own citizens, or even against citizens of any other country, save the U.S. itself.

I am, BTW, registered Libertarian and former LP Assembly candidate. But I will vote for Bush, even in a forgone-conclusion state like California. Why? because the LP has gone, as you say, moonbat. The utterly refuse to become a party that appeals to anything except the absolute fringe of the libertarian-minded voters.

Note: Bush is no libertarian. On social issues he is closer to Buchanan than to any libertarian. On economics he is mediocre. The WoT is the deciding issue for me — the LP has completely gone over the edge on this one.

But consider what the LP could be appealing to. Blogs like Instapundit & Volokh, to name only two, are extremely popular and closer to libertarianism than any major presidential canidate in living memory. There is a large libertarian base out there, completely unserved by two major parties trending deeper into statism. Where are the sane libertarians? Surely not in the LP anymore. I won’t be next time I bother to re-register.

:whip: