[clownassassin]

2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: Libertarians say they oppose mercantilism, corporate subsidies to companies, etc. However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to. Yet, libertarians tend to oppose campaign finance reform and related policies. To me this smacks of dishonesty; if they really cared that much about ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in, they would have to advocate large changes in campaign finance rules and advertising.


If the US Govt. budget was $0 and they did not have the power to meddle in the private sector, how much money do you think corporations or individuals would donate to politicians' campaign funds? The right answer is $0 or a whole lot less than current contributions.

The only way to stop government overspending and "ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in" is to take away the money and power from politicians. Campaign finance reform will never be more than an item of rhetoric during campaign debates with out drastically reducing the size and scope of government.