Libertarian Party Press Release

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Smaller Government... Fewer Taxes... More Freedom...

You know, I thought that is what the Republican party stood for.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why in the world did you ever think that?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because in the Reagan era Rs generally tried to live it out. Not always, not perfectly, but Goldwater's legacy was still distinguishable as part of their reason for being.

[mport1]

For the FDA question, I suggest some of you do some more research on the FDA before you praise its successes. The FDA causes much more harm than good and the estimated deaths caused because of the FDA far exceed the deaths that might have been possible in their absense, not to mention the extrodinary cost the FDA imposes on drug companies and the taxpayer. And people complain about high medical costs, the government is at the core of the problem.

I suggest reading Economists Against the FDA along with other well reasearched documents citing why the FDA should be abolished.

People need to stop following their emotions and what they hear on the news and actually RESEARCH the areas that they are talking about. A rational look at many government programs would show you that the benefits usually exceed the costs on a utilitarian basis and that the Libertarians win hands down on issues of liberty and morality.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
All the pro libertarian ideas alot of you have been posting are correct in theory(at least to me and alot of people who value free choice and freedom).You wont get an arguement here.But,i think the most important concept to realize here is this.Their is a movement in this country to create an oppressive christian state.This movement is getting stronger,and the republican leadership over the last few years has been an accomplish to this(if not directly involved).And make no mistake about it , this movement would love for those who oppose this kind of totalitarian type of thinking,to vote libertarian.In fact they will count of this to help push their pro christian republican candidates into power.Vote democrat(lesser of two evils)or vote alternative and possibly watch as the people you are intent to stop remain in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not vote for evil on principle.

[mport1]

On the wasted vote (there is no such thing - unless you don't vote for your most preferred party):

"It turns out that your one vote, and mine too, has a probability of swinging any evenly-matched election based on the following formula: Probability equals 3.64 divided by N, where N is the total number of votes cast. So for a small election, say for a homeowners' association with 100 members, your probability of casting the vote that determines the outcome is about 3.64 percent (or 0.0364). Stated differently, you'd have to vote in 27.5 elections to determine a single one. As we move up to the state and national level, the odds fall dramatically. With 11 million voters in California, where my friend and I live, the probability drops to 3.3 x 10-7 (0.00000033), which means that you'd have to vote in over three million presidential elections to determine the winner in California just once.

Of course, California isn't the whole country. California currently has 55 electoral votes out of a total of 538, with 270 needed to elect a president. Since 1852, when Californians first voted for U.S. president, California has been a key swing state in only two presidential elections. In 1876, California cast 6 electoral votes for Rutherford B. Hayes, who beat Samuel J. Tilden by the razor-thin margin of 185 to 184. In 1916, California cast 13 electoral votes for Woodrow Wilson, who beat Charles E. Hughes by 277 to 254. In either election, if California voters had gone the other direction, the national totals would have followed. In every other presidential election, however, the winner was determined regardless of how Californians voted. By acknowledging that California has been a swing state in only two of its 38 elections (5.3%), we can get to our final answer: A voter in California would have to vote in 57.5 million elections to determine one President of the United States.

This ignores voting error and fraud, but even with them, there is still a point at which the official vote total swings from candidate A to candidate B. The question is whether you will cast that key vote. And the answer is that it’s extremely unlikely.

What does this mean? Well, first of all it means that you'd have to vote for a very long time – 230 million years – to swing one election and all you'd have to show for it is a Bush in the White House instead of a Kerry (or visa versa). If you are like me and many other voters, you can't get very excited about either Bush or Kerry, so your final payoff would be lackluster, at best. For those who still think these odds look acceptable, consider the following comparisons. You are 12 times as likely to die from a dog attack, 34,000 times as likely to die in a motor vehicle accident, and 274 times as likely to die in a bathtub drowning as you are to swing a presidential election.

My friend thinks that his Libertarian votes have been wasted and that his vote for a Democrat will matter. This analysis shows that his vote for Kerry has a vanishingly small expected value. Even if he would be willing to pay $10,000 to determine the winner in November, the expected value (probability times value) of his vote for Kerry is only $0.00017. Americans won't even stoop to pick up a penny on the ground yet every four years they happily cast votes worth one fiftieth as much. Voting may still make sense, but the overall satisfaction of participating in a great democracy must be compared to the time and costs of voting. The expected vote-swinging outcome is rounding error. In fact, if you drive to your polling place, you are approximately ten times more likely to die in an accident on the way than you are to swing that presidential election.

Now, what if my friend votes for Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian candidate? Is that vote wasted? Well, it is clear that no third-party candidate will win the 2004 election, but my friend's support would certainly help his favorite political party stay in business and therefore get noticed. While it is in business, his party will help define election issues and could even get lucky and elect a president. Abraham Lincoln and Jesse Ventura are good examples of third-party candidates who were elected. Ross Perot in 1996 and 1992, American Independent George Wallace in 1968, and Progressive Robert LaFollette in 1924 were presidential candidates who got a large percentage of the popular vote. More likely, as any third party becomes successful, the Democrats and Republicans will simply adopt that party's platforms. The same thing happened with the Socialist party early in the 20th century. As Milton Friedman points out, the Socialists failed miserably with a popular vote total that peaked at only six percent in 1912. But they succeeded in the way that matters most. Dig below the surface and you'll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist's 1928 platform has since been written into law. The votes cast for these Socialists certainly weren't wasted from the point of view of those who cast them.

Your one vote has the same power to affect the results whether you vote for a major or minor candidate, but a vote for the candidate you respect and agree with gives you the expectation of a better outcome. If you are like me and do take the time and effort to vote, you should put your X beside the candidate you think will be the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you dislike. The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election."
Link

I will NEVER vote Democratic or Republican, unless the candidate actually holds libertarian ideals.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

People need to stop following their emotions and what they hear on the news and actually RESEARCH the areas that they are talking about. A rational look at many government programs would show you that the benefits usually exceed the costs on a utilitarian basis and that the Libertarians win hands down on issues of liberty and morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like great advice to me. I took this advice later in life than I should, but am very glad I took it. It has served me quite well.

Even if you are not for the lib party I recommend everyone do actual independent research into issues. When someone makes an arguement of why I should do/believe something my instinct is to want to know what the opposing argument against what he is suggesting is.

Too many ppl tow a party line without reallly investigating issues to learn what is below the surface. pick a party and then march in time to whatever the party leaders spout... and spout their arguments as to why it is right or wrong or whatever. Then something comes up and smacks you silly like a law that finally hits home.

We are loosing our freedom people and have been loosing our freedom for decades.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]

I do not vote for evil on principle

[/ QUOTE ] Not sure how to respond to that lol.For what its worth, the lesser of two evil phrase was added to let people know that im not a democrat and have no love for that party eithor(figure of speech).But,not sure what exactly you are debating.If GOOD was running in an election vs. EVIL id vote good too,ok you win [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[bkholdem]

Excellent post! This deserves its own thread. Please start a new thread with this post.

[mport1]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post! This deserves its own thread. Please start a new thread with this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, but to which post are you referring?

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
I've known for a long time that the Libertarian Party echoed most of my political beliefs, but like so many of us, I chose to be an uninvolved participant in the political process for the simple reason that I never felt it mattered.

The democrat and republican parties stopped representing the people's interests a long time ago, and now it is all about staying in power. The passing of this interenet gambling bill was the last staw for me, and I plan on becoming much more active in the political process both personally and finanically,and I plan on doing it through the Libertarian Party.

I really see no other choice. How I live my life is my business, and I'll be damned if I'm going to just lay there and let a self-righteous prick like Frist trample over my personal freedoms without a fight.

I encourage all of you to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's rare to read words that so closely mirror my own thoughts that I could have written them myself. Well played, sir.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
...The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election."
Link

I will NEVER vote Democratic or Republican, unless the candidate actually holds libertarian ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice hand, sir!