Libertarians--"party of principle"?

Beginning with Webster's definition:

Libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially thought and action. Capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.

The party denotes its self-->

Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

*a smaller government

*lower taxes

*more freedom.

*free-market economy

*foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade

*"live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook.

The Libertarian party is the 3rd largest political party with over 200,000 registered voters from all 50 states. It takes many of its characteristics from the two major parties and blends them into a hippy-fied effort to idealize America. Personally, I am a big fan of the Libs due to 3 major issues:

1) FREE SPEECH: they are the only party that explicitly defends free speech in every capacity which helps differentiate Libs from socialists.

2) SOCIAL SECURITY: you should be able to control your own investment strategies for your future if you choose to. Libs say that you should be able to opt out of Social Security and invest your money in your own personal retirement account. They are realistic--we all know there isn't going to be any money left when we retire, the governement should take over supporting the baby boomers, and let the 2nd wave have a chance to build a retirement fund for themselves. This policy in particular offers a very "pull your self up from your bootstraps" approach to social security, which is really the only democratic to handle the social security near-collapse.

3) FOREIGN POLICY/AID: Everything I have read about the "economic aid" America supplies to foreign countries points to stagnation of economic development, and dependence on U.S. money. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda and sent sewing machines to areas without electricity. There needs to be logic and accountability that U.S. tax payer dollars are supporting American ideals. Don't give the poorest of the poor toys and food--give them tools and skills to better themselves and create a sense of independence. America mingles too much in foreign affairs, if Americans really want to help other countries we should begin by improving our own economy. Once U.S. companies have funds to invest abroad, free trading policies will exert a greater positive influence on the economies of developing countries than does sending them money.

"The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."

Frontrunners set the pace for a long race!

<sup>The Washington post listed their opinion of the 2008 election frontrunners:
Democrats: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama
Republicans: Giuliani and McCain

Clinton, Obama, and Romney all raised over $20 million in the first quarter of 2007, whereas Edwards, Giuliani, and McCain raised over $12 million.
--Is this an accurate reading into American public opinion of these candidates? well, yes and no. Obviously the donors represent a significant allegiance to each of the candidates, however, the outcome of this election large depends on the nostalgia of the people. Candidate information, press releases, video and commentary have become infinitely more accessible than any election ever! With the internet, youtube, google--basically anyone has a significant source of information at their fingertips.

According to a poll featured on ABC News from early 2007, 65% of respondents stated that they are following the 2008 election closely (which is high, for being a year before the election). This brings me to point out that you must really take statistics for what they are worth. I mean, how much more likely are you to call into the newstation and tell them that you are following the election, opposed to calling and saying you are not following the election and you are a lazy unpatriotic american? Clearly, voluntary response surveys are not an early indicator that Americans are actually going to get actively involved in the election proceedings. Those of us who care have a responsibility to neutrally educate and motivate the country from within.

So the basic timeline is thus:
April 2008: the Constitutional Party will hold their National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri
May 2008: the Libertarian Party will hold their National Convention in Denver, Colorado
July 2008: The Green Party will hold their National Convention in Chicago, Illinois
August 25-28, 2008: The Democrats will hold their National Convention in Denver, Colorado
September 1-4, 2008: the Republicans will hold their National Convention in Saint Paul, Minnesota
**NOVEMBER 4, 2008: All states will elect their members of the Electoral College

And then--January 20, 2009 we will Inaugurate our new commander in chief.

For the remainder of my blog, I think I would like to closely examine each of the candidates (at least one from each party and the frontrunners) weigh their pros and cons, and let my readers in on a few of my personal leanings! I'll post my observations of Steve Kubby from California and the rest of the Libertarians this week!</sup>

The 2008 United States presidential election, scheduled to be held on November 4, 2008, will be the 55th consecutive quadrennial election for presient and vice preisdent of the U.S. There will also be elections helf for all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and elections for 34 members of the Senate.

Whats the big deal? Well--basically it means that we have the chance to make some big changes in the political arena, restructure the system of checks and balances, mitigate the damage done in Iraq, or reform social security to a degree of sustainability. It also means that we have the chance to uphold our self-fulfilling prophesy toward a downward spiral of coverup and corruption.

Ok--optimism is inherent in my blood, however, when it comes to U.S. politics I begin to exhibit extremely skeptical and cynical tendencies. When the search for our nation's commander in cheif succumbs to an all out guerilla warfare PR campaign, people need to care enough to look at the big picture.

A little about my poitical leanings:

Basically, i'm a Libertarian who values voluntary collectivism and freedom of information. I believe strongly in individual rights as long as they don't infringe on anybody else. Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy) I really encourage everyone to get to know themselves a little better and sort through their political beliefs. A good online quiz: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test -- it won't necessarily tell you your political affiliation, but it helps you to think about major issues in a less direct sense.

There are several reasons why this election is very different from any other:
1) This is the first election without incumbents in the primaries since 1928
2) There are literally over 20 people running
3) There are so many seats up for election in the House and Senate as well
4) There is less than a 30% approval rating for our current president
5) Democrats are finally beginning to define their issues
6) The two top runners of the Democratic party is a woman and an african american

My view regarding the commander in chief: The role of a commander in chief/president/leader in society is to collectively organize, empower, manage, and motivate your team. No one can expect the presidential-elect to be the all knowing, all seeing rightness in the world. No one is divine, no one is immortal; a politically diverse political body is essential, in these times checks and balances is the only way to ensure integrity--our forefathers knew this. Our president should realize his strengths and his weaknesses and have a network of capable specialized individuals in which, to build his cabinet. He should be, if nothing else, an effective communicator--efficient in receiving input objectively and presenting actions openly.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - M. Mead

--Jess