I suppose laws against theft is an example of the nanny state too- after all, we can protect our property ourselves!

Seriously, protection against unwanted sexual advances is as much the government’s job as protection against unwanted violent advances. I can’t fathom a consistent ideology that rejects that it is a proper role of government, save the anarchists (even the minimal staters would have to concede it as the government’s role of protection), or else is deeply compromised by its own misogyny.

Mr. Boaz’s comment on the inherent difficulty in putting together a political party with the strength to stand up to the Dems and Reps is particularly adroit because the breakdown of the two party system is increasingly important.

The current primary system has created a situation where the Democrats tend to pick the candidate that is furthest Left and the Republicans pick the candidate that is the furthest Right and the rest of us are forced to choose between the two extremes. One minute we are under the control of Leftist Communists the next minute we are under the control of Neo-Con Fascists. The entire nation is suffering from bipolar disorder as we flip from blue to red and red to blue in a desperate attempt to find purple.

How many people actually voted “for” Clinton as opposed to voting against Daddy Bush? How many people actually voted “for” Clinton as opposed to voting against Dole? How many people voted “for” Baby Bush as opposed to against Gore? I have been voting since 1984 and the only presidential candidate I actually wanted in office to date was Uncle Ronny and that was the first time I “pulled the lever” a quarter century ago. Since then it has been a parade of idiots and that is especially true locally. I had to fight back bile trying to decide between Diane Swinslime and Michael Nothington. That’s not a choice. That’s a punch line.

The saddest part is that the “lesser” parties such as the Libertarians, Green, etc. cannot seem to find a candidate with national appeal that can break this deadlock typically because they pander to extremist views that are even less palatable than the “mainstream” candidates.

The “missteps” I mentioned above are the reason the Libertarians are not taken seriously. Rather than presenting an agenda that both Dems and Reps can accept our candidates come off as absolutists that seek to eradicate government, dismantle society, eliminate taxes, and enforce a Darwinian agenda that leaves the weakest and poorest at the mercy of the strongest and richest.

Is that what Libertarian politics is about? I don’t think so but in reading many Libertarian publications this is the message that is being conveyed. If we really want to promote the concept of Liberty, dismantling – BIG – government, etc. we need to do a better job packing the message and this means a far more moderate stance than we, as a party, are projecting. We need to realize that we cannot change society overnight and it will take time to wean people off of social engineering concepts that have been status quo for half-a-century or more.

The Republicans continue to marginalize their party by pandering to the Religious Right. As it stands there are around a dozen truly “red” states. The same is true for “blue” states as well. As in previous elections no one voted “for” Obama, they voted against McCain’s platform of “Four more years of Baby Bush” which was completely intolerable to all but the Reddest of Republicans.

People are thirsting for a viable third party candidate. It would be nice if we could provide one rather than defiantly offering views that we are well aware alienate both sides of the isle. At some point someone is going to seize this opportunity. Why not us?

\"With respect to the two words \’general welfare,\’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.\" –James Madison

\"[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.\" –James Madison