..how about establishing the ability to cast a “negative vote?”...i.e. today people are herded into casting a ‘positive vote,’ thusly “affirming” one or the other of (usually) several goddamned fool $50 haircuts on $5 heads..

...when, in reality, it seems many/most decent/knowledgeable people who vote are casting a “positive vote” for the goddamned Republicrat chowderhead they find merely the least disgusting of the disgusting bowl-floaters the Republicrats have shat upon us again..and again….and again..

...so why not allow people the option to either ‘vote/”voice” positively’—adding one ‘vote’—for any politician or ‘vote negatively’—subtracting a vote—from the worst of the worst richardheads, assorted scumbags, etc. with which these stinking Republicrats usually plaque the ballot? ..

..this way, too, maybe these stinking Republicrat politicians will understand that very few decent people truly like them/their stinking ideas..

...this way, it might actually be worth voting in Republicrat elections!.....

(worse than child-like, these Republicrats!) ;o)

Simply Red and Midnight Blue
by Peter Orvetti

We in the Libertarian Party face the “wasted vote” argument quite often. It is time to turn it on its head, and to remind sympathetic voters that in many cases, voting for a major party candidate is wasting a vote.

In most elections, the outcome is pretty much known in advance. This isn’t just true in the Red State/Blue State presidential split, but in Senate, House, gubernatorial, and local elections as well. In such “foregone conclusion” contests, it is wiser to use one’s vote to send a message than to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

I live in Washington, D.C., and in 2004, I strongly preferred one major party presidential candidate over the other. But did that make any difference? My vote might have altered whether Kerry with 89% or 90%. Big deal. By voting Libertarian, I had the chance to register a message.

New York has had fusion voting for decades, allowing voters to pick a candidate while also making a statement—“I am voting for this guy on the Conservative line to remind him to stick to conservative principles”, for example. Most places do not have fusion voting, but since the results are known in advance anyway, why not take a stand? A left-leaning libertarian in Massachusetts (or Utah), and a right-leaning libertarian in Idaho (or Vermont) could say more by voting LP than by voting Democratic or Republican.

In California in 2004, Libertarian Jim Gray received more than 216,000 votes for U.S. Senate, a race incumbent Barbara Boxer won with 58% of the vote. But Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik got just over 46,000 votes in that same state, though Kerry beat Bush by more than one million. That means there were 170,000 Gray voters who could have voted for Badnarik without having any impact on the electoral vote allocation. And how many more libertarian-minded Kerry and Bush voters “wasted their votes” by making Kerry’s margin one vote larger or smaller?

We need to convince folks in the deep red and deep blue states that, far from being a wasted vote, a Libertarian vote often makes the most sense.

For the record, no anarchist I know wants a country with “no laws.” Rather, they simply want the state to follow the law, and contend that any state that does follow the law would cease to be a state.

Since I noticed while skimming that children were brought up, I feel it is worth mentioning that I remember being ten years old and extremely upset that the statutory law prevented me from selling my labour on the market. I had to wait four long years before I was able to engage in this basic human right. I dream of a future where children are not subjected to state-mandated work-denial.

Yours,
Alex

http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/04/sorry-bob-and-mike-but-not-in-my.html

Sadly, Robert Milnes’s progressive alliance strategy won’t work, but I have developed a much better strategy based on an alliance between the Green, libertarian
and constitution parties, the various socialist movements and centrist independents, Kucinich Democrats, Ron Paul Republicans, and other smaller groups such as fascists, feudalists, monarchists and syndicalists, to initiate the following goals.

1. The electoral college is abolished.
2. The presidential election uses a national Majority Runoff system. This will change us from a republic to a democracy.
3. Congress is elected through proportional representation.

Third parties should spend most of their energies pushing for these constitutional amendments, using graphic protests in public locations. Otherwise, the
efforts of all of them are doomed to do nothing more than push the major parties slightly in one direction, and ruin the chances of the parties that their
candidates are most closely aligned with, while gaining such small failing numbers for themselves. The people who visit this site are by definitions on
the fringes of society. It is important for the fringe to get together. This strategy is gaining the support of many political scientists across the nation,
and I will continue to post it several times a week here until it is adopted. Fortunately, we have the Obama Revolution to save our country for now.
The revolution will be televised.
Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s people on Earth.
Please pray for Fernando Lugo, please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama. Amen.

A nation with no laws would have no age of sex laws. Go Ruwarchy!

“Ageism refers to age-based discrimination, and includes the tendency to discount and devalue the feelings and opinions of children and youth. This tendency pervades our society and has implications in every area of a young person’s daily life: at home, at work, while shopping, hanging out with friends or going places, and especially at school. It has the socially corrosive—and costly—effect of breeding fear and distrust between the generations and isolating them from each other.”

“Opposing age-of-consent laws is not our only focus; it is one part of our broader criticism of North American social and legal practices. We believe that these laws do great harm to people and relationships that do not deserve to feel the crushing weight of the heavy hand of the law. Just as important, age-of-consent laws do not adequately protect young people. They have often been applied arbitrarily and unjustly, and have long been used to terrorize gay males. Gay youth in particular have been targets of extreme persecution through the selective application of age-of-consent laws.”

Those children live in a voluntary anarchist society.

Ruwarchy rocks!

“Before the Industrial Revolution, we created far less wealth per hour than we do today. Consequently, life was dangerous and hard, whether in the coal mines or on the farms. Children worked in both places—or went hungry.

“The Industrial Revolution made wealth creation more efficient in free market nations. Eventually, children were able to go to school instead of work, since their parents could more easily support them.

“Nations without free markets became the “Third World.” Children living in these countries today often have the same choice our great-great grandparents did: work or starve. Even when outlawed, child labor still continues there because it’s a necessity for survival.

“The free market and the Industrial Revolution made childhood, as we know it today, possible. It will do so for the rest of the world, too, if adopted.”

Link to Families Become Clans in a Free Society by Mary Ruwart: http://libertariannation.org/a/f43r1.html