[Preechr]

Hmmm... I'll count my words, then...

Why should you guys vote Libertarian? I'll rephrase the question like that because I don't want you to think I'm upholding Badnarik as the pentultimate Libertarian candidate as he's only this election's candidate, though a good debater and thus quite worthy...

I'd say you should not necessarily run out and vote blindly for the LP candidate as much as you should determine for yourselves objectively how each candidate stacks up to the libertarian ideal. As I have said, you and most other folks are libertarians at heart, though you've simply yet to let me convince you of it. I believe that if you were to rate each candidate on a libertarian scale of one to ten or something, after I convinced you you really were a libertarian yourself, you'd wind up voting for Badnarik.

I seem to be running down the word counter, so I suppose I'd better start explaining why libertarianism is so far superior to Democratism or Republicanism or Greenism, shouldn't I?

Essentially, it all comes down to efficiency, which I define as economy of motion. I'm all into streamlining, so this is a natural path for decision making for me. I'm vain enough to believe most people are much like me in this fundamental sense... believing that efficiency is primarily essential in any societal equation. This is the sharpest edge of libertarian belief, that efficiency is key, and it's what forms the foundation of the capitalistic or aggressive side of libertarian ideology.

To that end, libertarians believe that the person closest to any need that is capable of filling that need is the most qualified and efficient person to do so. This includes both societal and individual needs. The individual with a need is generally the one that should provide whatever necessary to satisfy any personal needs, and the individuals that are closest in life to that individual are the ones that know her best and are thus most qualified to help and interested in helping out out when she isn't up to the task of helping herself.

Keep in mind, when I say need that also includes certain person's need to be guided back onto the right side of the line when they do things that violate societal standards, not just positive needs such as being hungry or dangerously poor or sick...

Economy of motion. If I need a potato, much less effort will be required if I go get one myself or, if that's impossible for some reason, I rely on my family for one rather than petition the federal government for a potato. See, the check we're building here is against those that would work the system: the freeloaders, the bane of the nanny state.

See, if I'm just a lazy guy that would prefer to get a potato without working for it, the indiscriminate nanny state system is perfect for me. By the time I commit whatever fraud is necessary to fake my way into food stamps or whatever, it's pretty safe to say that I've wore out my welcome with my family and friends. They know by now that I'm just a moocher, but the nanny state is enjoined from making that distinction. I get my potato, even though I have to use the inefficient system to do so. What do I care who's time and money get wasted to get me a free potato as long as I get it, right?

The whole concept of the Democratic Republic is inextricably tied into this basic idea. You are the one that's primarily responsible for your own life. The corollary of that assertion is that you own your rights to the furthest extent possible, as rights are always indivisible from the responsiblity to wield them without causing harm to others or otherwise impeding others' right to do as they choose. This all squares quite nicely with the Constitution.

I've yet to cross the line into pointing out the inherent hypocracies of either the Republicans or the Democrats advocating the nanny state. Let's just say any political entity has a vested interest in taking responsibility for, and thus assuming the associated rights from, anyone and everyone possible. Politics is the search for power, and individual citizens are the source of any political power. The Constitution was designed to limit government's reach, protecting our rights (and preserving our personal responsibilities) to the furthest extent possible in a civil society.

The Ds and the Rs grow government by exploiting the worst aspects of their constituent bases. The righties sell the idea that, while freedom is nice and all, no reasonable person can expect that allowing everyone, especially the bums, minorities and foreigners, to do whatever they want. The concept of keeping a little bit of God's law in government resonates well with the Republican base, even if that means voting for a guy that's willing to take the most extreme measures to do so regardless of the Constitution or any other measure of decency.

The lefties, on the other hand, play to a different kind of bias found in their base: classism. Just as the average Republican voter is willing to limit their own personal freedoms extensively to insure other, less decent people can't make those dangerous choices, the average Democrat voter isn't as much for big government subsidation of the poor and unfortunate as she is voting to punish the greedy over-achievers our society so lionizes, even if it means punishing herself with higher taxes... or voting for a perfect example of the folks languishing in unearned wealth, the enemy.

The Republican base is generally happy with the idea of punishing evil-doers rather than understanding and helping them, like people such as, y'know, Jesus recommended. The Democrat base is just as hypocritical, as the "blue" states have shown to be much less likely to donate their own money to charities that actually help the poor and disadvantaged they purport to be voting to support than do the "red" states.

By federalizing personal responsibility, the Republicans have effectively created an environment that encourages more of the anti-societal behavior among the "lower classes" they had wished to eliminate with their policies. The Democrats, on the other hand, have created an inefficient yet heavily funded mechanism to "help" the disadvantaged of the world that actually competes against efficient private charity, simply because private charity doesn't have the means to "soak the rich."

It's all deliciously ironic, no? Independently, both forms of government hurt those they say they mean to help. By combining them, we have effectively punished everyone equally. For what?

Voting Libertarian is voting for better, more effective government. The outline for that style of government is beautifully woven, almost perfectly, into the Constitution of this country. Both parties have ignored or "intentionally misunderstood" as much of the original plan as necessary to gobble up the power required to fuel the punishment schemes they believe to be necessary to a decent society. Libertarians would end this cycle of punishment for all, returning much of government's power to the individuals it was meant to belong to.

If you reflexively object to this idea, you'll likely do so by imagining some sort of catastrophic consequences to some form of allowing others to do as they please within the limits of only what is actually harmful to someone else. We can't legalize drugs because, overnight, heart surgeons will become junkies and the world will descend into chaos. We can't lower the social safety net because only the government can be trusted to help those in need, so vast swathes of society will die from neglect in weeks. Neither side could possibly trust freedom to grow on it's own in a poor, dark country like Iraq, so we'll have to stay there and spoonfeed it to them like they are a bunch of parapalegic infants or we'll all die.

God forbid we allow gays to marry or expect rich people to spread their wealth voluntarily. God forbid we look at life objectively and assume most people will treat each other with decency and compassion if allowed the freedom to do so by their own choices. Personally, if I'm to live in an America full of people as shitty as both sides together believe everyone to be, I'll happily move to New Zealand or the moon to get away from you freaks. Personally, I believe the vast majority of people will be decent to and supportive of one another if you just leave them alone for the most part, only putting a gun to someone's (or some other country's) head if they actually do something to harm someone else.

Our complementary methods of punishment for each other are not what made this country great. We have used our great wealth producing abilities to design an economy that can sustain our own oppression indefinitely, however. Think of the fortunes we'd have to spend on helping the world and each other if our government didn't require a per-capita average of 55% of whatever we can produce each year.

If I gave you a 55% raise in pay, not only would your life be less of a struggle but you'd likely be more willing to help others in need. I believe nearly all of us would do the same. Some central government is obviously necessary, but I don't have the space allowance to cut and paste the Constitution in this post. A good start to that end is located here, and you can backtrack up that link to find full explanations of how each article of that document was meant to work by following this link.

So, vote for the society in which you truly wish to live. When I see a thread devoted to how we are living through the downfall of our society and every post seems to agree as if it weren't even a question, I think a lot of you are already to agree that voting for the status quo is really the only way you could be throwing your vote away.