Aaron

I really don't know enough about him to say one way or another. At least he's not Ted Cruz, which is what I think a lot of Tea Party members are saying now. Man you would not believe how many are pissed about the whole "lets take the country to the abyss because they aren't giving us our own way" debacle. I don't think they realize how much harm they caused their own party. On another note, he says he's a Libertarian, but I think he means he leans towards the Libertarian stance. If he runs for president, will I vote for him? Well it depends on who else is running, but right now he does seem to be the most Libertarian candidate to make it in mainstream politics to date. I do believe he appreciates the need to follow the constitution and he hasn't (to my knowledge) jumped on the "America under God" bandwagon, nor the Tea Party desire to have a constitutional monarchy. Laugh, but they actually discussed this as the most Christian form of government. Aaron

Before the insurance companies came up with the notion of auto insurance there was no legal age limit for driving. Most of the laws that are enforced in most countries are lobbied by the auto insurance industry. The reason why they back laws, is simply because it allows them to earn a greater revenue on claims. The only law that should be applied to driving is that one needs to do it safely. It's not hard to figure out what constitutes unsafe driving, and it would be easy enough for a police officer who sees someone driving unsafely to stop them and document why they stopped them. A judge could then adjudicate whether or not they put others in danger with their actions and act accordingly. And I know someone will say "oh and then it's so subjective", well guess what, it's already subjective, the difference is that it's subjective in a way that allows insurance companies to increase premiums for stupid things like not coming to a complete stop or failing to wear your seat belt. People seem to believe that libertarians are opposed to authority, but that's not the case, there is a need for authority in the Libertarian view, but there is a greater need for civil liberties and freedom. Aaron

The only true course of change is a change of heart. You can make laws, people will break them. You can force people to pay taxes for programs that they don't want, they will resent them. You can educate the children to believe the government is infallible, but at some point it will fail them. You are operating within the premise that people are immoral and sinful by nature, most likely a view point that you gained while being indoctrinated with judeo-christian values. You are not seeing past the trap, so you're caught within this cycle of negativity, that anything different is wrong, sinful, and only those things that align with your own values can be correct and right. When we work within this framework, we fail to see the value of other people, their ideas, their abilities, and their capabilities. We see people, not as they are, but as the labels we place on them. You are providing examples, not of anarchy, or libertarianism, but of corrupt governments that are in the pocket of corporations or kingpins. Nepal is widely known as one of the most corrupt governments which is why pollution laws and standards have never been enforced. I would suggest that rather than continuing to find examples of countries that are not Libertarian in the least, you remember that Libertarianism is opposed by the political system, because it gives power back to the people and takes it away from the government, which in most cases is nothing more than a corporate shill. If you don't believe this, then just take a look at what corporate interests supported Obama's election and what actions he took on their behalf. I think it's ironic that one of his largest campaign contributors and supporters was the Insurance industry and now it's illegal not to have health insurance. Nothing insidious there. Aaron

I started drinking coffee at the age of eight. Coffee is my favorite beverage. I drink one to two cups a day now, so I try to make sure it's the best it can be. I've found that one of the most important things when preparing coffee is the coarseness of the grind. The more fine the grounds, the more strength there is to the coffee, but also the more coffee beans you use. For me I try to have grounds a bit finer than commercially ground coffee, but not as fine as they use in coffee shops. The fact is coffee doesn't have to be strong to taste good. I, however, like many people, do not like black coffee. I have always drunk my coffee sweet with milk and never artificial sweeteners. I have also started using unprocessed sugar, which makes a world of difference as well. As for the idea of using butter in coffee, I am going to try it once I have the proper utensils. Aaron

Rules absolutely create aberrant behavior. The more rules the more aberrant a society becomes, because rules prevent people from being able to behave in a natural fashion. The only reason why there are laws is to control people, but as Lao Tzu said, the more you try to control something, the more sick it becomes and the more it deviates from the natural path (Te). Aaron edit- This is Anarchism 101 by the way, of which I am a card carrying member.

That's not necessarily true. I can't foretell the future, but what I can say is that they are not against getting rid of all amendments, only those that are obviously unconstitutional. I also know that they take the constitution very seriously and I doubt they would undergo any drastic changes without prior consideration regarding the legality of the law. Remember they supported gay marriage and are against the prohibition of narcotics and marijuana. They also are against censorship and the invasion of privacy, again they were one of the few political movements that were against the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, in fact they warned people what would happen if the act was passed, and they were right. I honestly believe that people will do the right thing if they are given the chance. I think much of our fear regarding this is government propaganda that tells us differently. The truth is there in front of us, but we decide that we don't want to see it because it contradicts what we are taught is the right. Until we ask the question, why is this right, we wont every understand why it might be wrong. Aaron

One of the things I find most offensive in a conversation online is when someone chooses to start their reply with a LOL, because in regards to a debate or discussion, it shows disrespect to the person who you're talking to. The point could've been made without the LOL and it wouldn't have been derisive. I think in regards to internet etiquette that should be one of the most important rules to consider when you're having a dialogue with someone else. Simply ask yourself if you would do this in polite conversation, laugh at what someone has just told you, and then ask how that would make the other person feel. Aaron

Where did you get the information for your counter argument? I haven't heard any of these things about the project. You're probably right, people aren't capable of making the right choices for themselves, especially in regards to driving an automobile, so they certainly need strict and stringent rules that direct them in every action they possibly could take. Oh wait, maybe the purpose of these rules is simply to ticket drivers for "unsafe actions", as was my case. One of the few tickets I've ever received occurred twenty years ago, when I was at an intersection in the middle of nowhere and slowed down, almost to complete stop, but not quite, before making my turn. It was at night and there were no cars in any direction, but a cop was waiting behind a sign and gave me a ticket. He even admitted that I hadn't put anyone in danger, but the law was the law he said. Now the facts about this project speak volumes... first accidents are down and there are numerous testimonials regarding the improved traffic conditions, however you seem to be providing only circumstantial evidence, without any citation to verify it's veracity. We don't need the government to dictate our lives, take care of our poor, or direct traffic, we need them to protect the borders, (not expand them) that's it. When they do that and leave the people to their own devices, peace will reign in the land, or at least that's what Lao Tzu felt. Aaron edit- And I'll bet you if there's a campaign against this project it's backed by the insurance companies.

I really do hope Vajrahridaya comes back one day. He was really a great guy with an abundant knowledge of Buddhism. I enjoyed his debates. We lost a lot of people along the way. Aaron

Hamburg may try it out. That'll give us a good idea of how it'll work in cities.

Most people aren't interested in living in an anarchistic society, because they fail to understand that peace is not something that must be enforced, but rather when you try to enforce peace it causes disharmony. I saw this on youtube and thought it was a great example of how it's beneficial to let things follow their natural course... Aaron

Something interesting I saw that speaks volumes about the harm government interference in our daily lives causes without us knowing.... Aaron

Ahem... the civil rights movement was actually the correct response by the federal government. I don't know of any Libertarians that argue against the Civil Rights movement or Civil Rights laws, in fact the decisions made by the federal government upheld constitutional law already in place. I would like to point out that in your argument, the same kind of social injustices should have been found in the northern states as well. I think the problem has less to do with state rights and more to do with social mores prevalent in the south. Also keep in mind that the Federal government was illegally monitoring civil rights leaders in order to try and find information they might be able to use against them. This was a clear sign of how the increase in Federal government was leading to a curtailing of civil rights. Aaron Edit- Also none of the people you're citing as sources are Libertarians, so I really don't understand how this can be connected to the Libertarian party.

US World News did an article on this topic. On page two they list the Ivy league schools that accepted one of the students. The basis of their acceptance is on their national scoring, of which Home Schooled students rank amongst the highest percentile. http://www.usnews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2012/06/01/home-schooled-teens-ripe-for-college Also you can check out the Huffington Post article on the same topic, that basically says the same thing, it can be found at... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/homeschooled-students-wel_n_1562425.html Here's a quote from the Huffington Post article- "More than 2 million U.S. students in grades K-12 were home-schooled in 2010, accounting for nearly four percent of all school-aged children, according to the National Home Education Research Institute. Studies suggest that those who go on to college will outperform their peers. Students coming from a home school graduated college at a higher rate than their peers­ -- 66.7 percent compared to 57.5 percent -- and earned higher grade point averages along the way, according to a study that compared students at one doctoral university from 2004-2009." You should read these articles, I think it might change your opinion of home schooling. A lot of what you read is propaganda spun by the Teachers Unions and education system that loses money when children are taught at home. Aaron

Well let me ask you this question, Is a fetus the offspring of a human being? By definition a fetus is the developing offspring of a human being, thus being an offspring it is a human being. This is the ridiculous part to me, a baby is born premature, you kill it, it's murder, you decide to pull it out of the mother and sever it's spinal cord, it's an abortion. Something is seriously wrong there. Pro-life activists try to define it at 11 weeks, but scientists haven't been able to clearly distinguish when an embryo becomes a fetus... why, because an embryo is just a designation used by pro-choice elements to try to justify killing the baby, in reality it is a child, whether it is an embryo or a fetus, the fact that it follows the process of life and grows as it becomes older means that it is alive! So killing an embryo or fetus is still killing a living human being. That's my view. If you don't agree that's fine. Are you going to use semantics to try and win this argument? Aaron

I'm not so sure that our forefathers weren't expecting a two party system, in fact I think that they intended for a two party system, especially in light of the Federalist and anti-Federalist debates. However you're right, the opportunity for corruption is greater in a two party system. What I see happening in the near future is the creation of smaller parties that will have a major impact on the political landscape. When this happens you'll see more cooperation, simply because one party alone wont be able to maintain the status quo. Aaron

Ralis, I'm wondering why so many ivy league schools seem to feel different, in fact many of them are excited to have home schooled children, because more often than not they perform significantly better academically. Now if you follow the democrats stance, a party that is funded by teachers unions, then it makes sense you might believe what you do, but in reality most home schooled kids excel in all subject matters compared to school taught kids. Remember the curriculum that home schooled children are taught is almost identical to the ones being taught in school. The only difference is that the parent is helping the child. Of course you're probably right, a parent shouldn't be able to decide what their children are being taught, rather that should be dictated by the government, I mean how else are we going to ensure they kowtow to authority? Now that I'm done with the sarcasm, let me just say that I am agnostic, leaning towards atheism, but I still believe that parents have the right to teach their children what they want to teach them, because I believe in freedom of speech, religion and expression. When you start to dictate what a child can and can't be taught, you take those things away from the parent and the child. For me there is a big difference between not teaching creative science in school and denying a parent's right to teach there child it at home. Aaron P.S. Ralis, if this sounds snarky in places, please disregard that. I know you're a good person with good intentions, so I accept that you disagree with me, and most of your ideas make perfect sense, I just feel in my heart that I'm touching on the right stuff here, mainly because I honestly believe Libertarian-ism is the closest thing to Taoism we have in our political landscape.

The Libertarians are against the prohibition on Marijuana (and drugs in general) believing users should receive treatment, rather than incarceration. Again, the reason I like the Libertarians so much is that they are focused on freedom as it was laid out in the constitution. The federal government was never meant to be the monster it is now. The sad thing is that the vast majority of children being educated in the government schools are being taught that there is no alternative. This is the main reason I advocate home schooling. Aaron

I have this memory of playing 'duck, duck, go' in kindergarten and almost crying because no one would pick me, then being ecstatic when someone actually did. Those kinds of games are important for building an understanding of team work, imo. Watch kids play 'follow the leader' and you realize it's vastly different from the way adults play the game. Aaron edit- Not sure if this is what you were talking about Zerostao.

Hi Ralis, I'm actually Pro-Life, because I believe that fetuses are living human beings by definition. I understand why people believe it's a woman's right to choose, but I honestly believe it's murder, so I tend to choose the pro-life stance. I'm not militant about it, but I do try to educate people when I can regarding the topic. I am not, however, anti-birth control, nor do I oppose the morning after pill. IMPORTANT NOTE- THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIBERTARIANS ARE PRO-CHOICE. I'm not one of them. Aaron

Ralis, Karl Rove isn't a libertarian. The fact is the vast majority of Libertarians are not "Ayn Rand" fans, in fact I'd like to know where you heard that, because I never heard of Ayn Rand when I first joined the party. It wasn't until I met some early Tea Party members, back in the beginning of the Bush era that I started to hear people using Ayn Rand's philosophies as a philosophical platform for the government. Also keep in mind that there are different types of Libertarians, I'm a constitutional libertarian. There are Libertarians that are less reactionary, that understand the need for compromise, however in certain areas there is no room for compromise, and civil liberties is one of those areas. The next time someone complains about the Patriot Act, just remember that nearly every republican and democrat in the senate and congress voted in support of it, the only ones that didn't were the Libertarians. How anyone can try to link them to corporate cronyism is beyond me. Aaron

What I want is government out of my life. The Libertarian Party is advocating that. I think our reliance on government is the reason why society has been rapidly declining in the last century. The more you rely on something, the more it can control you. Giving up your choice in your child's education by sending them to public school is essentially allowing the government to raise your child. I'm willing to sacrifice some comfort for the sake of freedom. If more people understood that their "freedom" was really nothing more than an illusion of comfort and security, that each day they grow closer and closer to a fascist state that will eventually control every sector of their lives, I think they'd be seeing the Libertarian platform in a different light. And yes I was educated in the public school system. I graduated eighth grade and quit my second month into high school. I eventually got my GED and went to college on school loans I'm still paying for. I am not a fan of the two party system and anyone who watched the video at the link I posted earlier will see why. There is no such thing as a democratic and republican party, the vast majority of politicians are being funded by the same corporate sectors. The game is rigged. Your children's future is rigged. You think the time of cameras watching every step you take is decades away? It's already here. You think the time of governments monitoring your purchases, political choices, and daily activities is decades away? It's already here. We are living in the police state and the only way to break free is to break the system and remake it in the form it was intended. The Republic of America was intended to withstand the oligarchical climate of its time, but we're facing a new oligarchy in the guise of corporate interests. If we don't understand this and start doing something to stop it, we'll all be paying for it with our lives sooner, probably, rather than later. Aaron

Watch this if you want to learn more about the current two party system... http://www.minds.com/blog/view/246671165156757504/judge-napolitano-how-to-get-fired-from-fox-business-in-under-5-mins

The Koch brother's quit funding the CATO Institute after it was founded, the primary reason being the institute wouldn't play ball with them, In particular the Cato institutes criticism of corporate welfare, the various state settlements with the tobacco industry (a major source of the Koch family wealth), and numerous other disagreements led to the Koch's ceasing funding of the institute and instead founding other Republican think tanks that were more in line with the Koch's own ideology. Again, you're confusing the Tea Party and Libertarians, they're not the same. The Koch's haven't touched the Libertarian Party since the 80s. Aaron

Again, the Libertarian Party is based on the idea that people can make a change, that the government isn't needed to do that. The irony is that people cry freedom, but what they really mean is, comfort and security. Well you've got your comfort and security, but at what cost? Education- Again, people shouldn't have to pay for something that they are not using. I have no children, why should I have to support a public education system? Why do I need to send someone else's kid's to school? Even more importantly, why should the government dictate how our children are educated? The children of America do not belong to the government, but to their parents and ultimately the parents should decide what kind of education they receive (and this is coming from an atheist by the way). Medicine- Again, historically the private sector has provided medical care for those in need when it wasn't provided by the government. Honestly, why should I be forced to provide care for someone else? If I want to help someone else, shouldn't I have that choice? Also, do you honestly think requiring people to have medical insurance is going to make a difference if those people can't afford it in the first place? Policing- First this is where it gets tricky, constitutionally the only group that is supposed to police it's citizens is the state, not the federal government. In that light the states would have to raise the money for their own police force through taxation. Federal law enforcement would be dramatically reduced. The DEA, for instance, would be unnecessary, as would the ATF. Perhaps there would be a need for the FBI, but only when investigating federal crimes, and keep in mind that the legal system would most likely go through dramatic changes, because the vast majority of federal law is actually unconstitutional if viewed objectively. (The other thing most people are unaware of is the fact that the vast majority of laws are pushed through by government in lieu of the constitution.) And as for the environment, do you really think the Libertarians are going to say, "dump whatever you want wherever"... Again, they're not the Tea Party, they aren't going to allow for the wholesale destruction of the environment. Really... if you think the LP is in bed with the corporations, why aren't they supporting them? Corporate interests aren't funding LP campaigns because they understand that the deregulation they're talking about (not the Tea Party illusionary deregulation) is actually going to lose them money. Follow the money and you'll see where the truth is. Aaron