Harry Browne sent out a list of 10 un-asked questions at the debate. here is my personal favorite.

And the #1 question that wasn't asked in the presidential debate is ...

1. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, would either of you be a better person today if, for your youthful drug use, you had served 10 years in prison? If not, why don't you propose to release the hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders in federal prisons?

Oh God I would love to have seen that one asked!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000

Answers

Unc--

I am not saying Harry Browne's figures are wrong---I have no idea, but if he is going to say that there are "hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders in Federal prisons", then he should reference the source of this number.

Reminds me of the early 90s when, for purposes of their own, the homeless advocates claimed that there were millions of street people.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 06, 2000.

Yep sounds like (((unmitigated horsecrap))) them figs.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 06, 2000.

It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of thousands, thousands, hundreds or just a few non-violent drug offenders in jail ... that would have been one very good question.

Any chance you'll post the remaining nine questions Unk?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 06, 2000.

Here's a start:

War Against Marijuana Consumers

Snipped from above linked page:

"In 1997 alone, state and local law enforcement arrested 695,200 people for marijuana violations."

You were saying, Doc?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 06, 2000.

And how many were convicted of Federal offenses? (that was the Harry Browne assertion).

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 06, 2000.

Oh yes, they must be non-violent offenses.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 06, 2000.

Good catch, Lars. I didn't notice the word Federal.

Looks like unmitigated horsecrap.

(slinking away...)

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 06, 2000.

Oh, and Harry, while were at it would you be so kind as to tell us about your experiences with drugs. None you say! Hell you aint fit to run this here country.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), October 06, 2000.

I heard an anecdote but can't remember where so can't vouch for it. But that never stopped me before.

Anecdote: Dick Gephardt claimed that he NEVER has used drugs. Now Dick came of age in the 60s so someone asked....."why"?

Any normal person of the Clinton/Gore/Dubya generation experimented with drugs when they were young. I wouldn't trust them if they hadn't.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 07, 2000.

Questions 10-2

10. Mr. Gore, you said you believe fully in a woman's right to choose. Does this mean a woman has a right to choose to get out of the Social Security system -- or to choose to smoke marijuana to relieve the pain of glaucoma or chemotherapy? Or is abortion the only area in which a woman has the right to choose what she wants?

9. Mr. Bush, you said you believe in the strict construction of the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to spend my money on federal education programs, to take my money and give it to charities of your choice, or to set up a prescription-drug program for seniors?

8. Mr. Gore, you said you believe the Constitution contains a right to privacy. Does that mean you'll stop Treasury agents from searching our bank accounts, looking for suspicious transactions? Will you end all federal asset forfeiture, stop monitoring e-mails, and take that ridiculous V-chip out of our TV sets?

7. Mr. Bush, you said you want to give taxpayer money to children to attend private schools. Won't that mean federal regulation of private schools -- turning them into clones of the government schools? Or are you planning to issue the vouchers without any rules whatsoever?

6. Mr. Gore, when asked about the fund-raising scandals, you said you won't answer such questions because they are "personal attacks." Does this mean you should never be held personally accountable for anything you do in office?

5. Mr. Bush, you said you believe in local control of education. Why then are you pushing for mandatory testing and other policies to be imposed by the federal government?

4. Mr. Gore, since the introduction of Medicare, the cost of health care to seniors has more than doubled, even after allowing for inflation. Why do you want to extend this failed program to prescription drugs -- which would probably cause their prices to rise and their availability to shrink, and discourage the developmentof new drugs that might cure cancer or Alzheimer's Disease?

3. Mr. Bush, you haven't proposed the elimination or reduction of a single government program, regulation, or law. So why do you refer to yourself as the candidate of smaller government?

2. Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush, you each keep referring to budget surpluses. But the official federal debt continues to grow month by month, year by year. This is because the "surplus" exists only by borrowing the excess Social Security receipts and using them to paper over the deficit in the general fund. So how can you promise to "save" Social Security when you're spending all its receipts and leaving nothing in the trust fund? And how can you promise to use the "surplus" for taxcuts, debt reduction, and new spending programs when there is no surplus?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 07, 2000.

Thanks, Unk. I was concerned with throwing away my vote, but no more. We need to plaster questions like these all over creation and shove them in the face of the media as much as possible. Frequent letters to the editor are a good start.

-- Tired Taxoayer (TT@lets.get.rid.of.politicians), October 07, 2000.

DP,

What the hell is (((unmitigated horsecrap)))?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), October 07, 2000.

What is Unmitigated Horsecrap

What Rush Limbaugh spews each day on the radio, Alex

"riiight Jean,,,pick again please", Right Wing rhetoric in plain English for $800 Alex

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 07, 2000.

Unk, please don't take this personally, as I have a great deal of respect for you, but those questions are (to coin a phrase) "unmitigated horsecrap". (And "nemesis", the dictionary definition, as used in this context, would be "[nonsense] being so definitely what is stated as to offer little chance of change or relief". That comes from Merriam- Webster's Collegiate Dictionary online.)

Question #10 asks if Gore believes a woman has a right to choose a couple of things that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. What's the point of that? Seems to me all he really wants is people to have the ability to "opt out of Social Security", so why doesn't he just come out and ask that instead of posing the question as a "woman's choice"? Out of his examples, "abortion" is the ONLY one that is strictly a woman's issue.

Question #9 asks Bush where in the Constitution it states that taxpayer money can go to different programs. Doesn't Harry know that it's the CONGRESS and not the CONSTITUTION that enacts such measures and that said CONSITUTION gives said CONGRESS those rights? If you don't like what the Congress is doing, elect a new one. Even if Harry is elected President, he STILL has to deal with the CONGRESS. Or isn't he aware of that?

Question #8 deals further with the Constitution. I'd like Harry to detail each and every case of "Treasury agents ... searching our bank accounts". I'd like Harry to further detail why he feels it's necessary to "end all federal asset forfeiture" because I believe that DRUG DEALERS should have their assets forfeited. I want Harry's details on just whose emails are being monitored and why he would care if he has nothing to hide. Lastly, I wonder why Harry doesn't realize that it was the lazy American public (you know, the parents who won't take responsibility for their own children, the ones who blame their little brats' behavior on things like TV and movies, yet don't monitor what their little brats watch) who DEMANDED "that ridiculous V-chip [in] our TV sets" in the first place.

As to the original question you posted, how much "rhetoric" does one require to simply ask "why don't you have a proposal to release non-violent drug offenders from federal prisons"? He's no better than the two he's supposedly questioning.

I really don't see a need to go on here; the questions are eerily reminiscent of those assinine "39 questions" Mike Adams had people spam reporters with. Seems to me Harry's platform is just as much "rhetoric" as is that of Gore and/or Bush and/or Pick-A- Politician. No real "choice" there either, as he is simply pandering to HIS constituents as are the others.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 08, 2000.

Question #10 is a bunch of malarky. I like question #3.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 08, 2000.

It's nice to see my phrase taking on a life of it's own, I can only hope that it reaches the level that Flint's "Kicking anthills" did. (BTW, it's "unmitigated horseshit", not crap)

Also, Patricia, I am a big boy, you do not need to worry about hurting my feelings.

Now, as to question #10. This one makes a great deal of sense to me. Gore is in favor of "choice" for women over their own bodies. He states that women are the best judge as to how they should run their own reproductive system. I in fact agree with him. Asking Gore whether this freedom over one's own body and future applies to other things is only logical, IMHO. Afterall, if a woman is free to kill an unborn child in the name of exercising control over her own body why cannot that same woman exercise control over what substances she puts into that body? If a woman is smart enough to decide that she can abort an unborn human isn't she also smart enough to decide how best to plan for her own retirement, and whether taking 15% of her income and putting it into the SS system is in her best interest? I feel that women are smart enough to decide all three things, guys too.

9. Mr. Bush, you said you believe in the strict construction of the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to spend my money on federal education programs, to take my money and give it to charities of your choice, or to set up a prescription-drug program for seniors?

If Bush does indeed believe in strict construction of the Constitution then he must observe that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Most of the reasoning behind the laws passed in conflict to this Amendment cite Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the "General Welfare of the United States" clause. Folks who are more in favor of State's rights cite the same Section, but point out that this Section of the Constitution spells out very narrow areas that Congress is authorised to legislate. It is one of those areas where folks disagree about what the Founders intended. If he is a strict constructionist then he must defer to the fact that none of the items in Harry's question are spelled out as areas that Congress may legislate, and in fact revert to the States for legislation. Simple.

Question #8. See the "Know your customer" rules proposed last year if you don't think that the Feds are mucking about in your bank account. Also see the ten thousand dollar cash reporting requirements. And as to whether or not the drug war and forfeiture are a good thing, I disagree with you. The drug war is a lost cause that is doing more harm to society than good. As to the V-chip, I must have been getting popcorn when all of the huge public protests DEMANDING a V-chip took place, I seem to remember the idea for it coming from the Whitehouse.

What you see as rhetoric I see as putting the horseshitters on the spot. Neither of them had to answer any tough questions like that, and I think that they will continue to avoid such sticky subjects in their upcoming "debates".

As Shakespeare said "A pox on both your houses!"

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

Well Pat,

Don't take this personally as I have ALOT of respect for you,BUT,on this one I'm with Unk or rather myself.

Let these questions be asked of the major candidates and let THEM answer/debate them on their own(IF THEY CAN).

We can/will debate them on our own,BUT CAN THEY???

This is the juxt of wanting 3rd party candidates on the debating platform,truth is they can't handle it,nor do they want to be subjected to anything taxing.They,the D's & R's might as well be THE SAME PARTY,if they *really* aren't,because it's all about centralization of power.THEY do not want to lose their stronghold,for Christs sake this is their living!!! Who is gonna allow an outsider to undermine thier vocation and take away the Federal tit?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 08, 2000.

Unk, we can debate these "points" from now until the cows come home; it won't change the fact that you have your opinions and I have mine.

But I'm genuinely surprised you can't see that these questions have been crafted to allow ONLY for Browne's point of view. How can you not see this is simply the Libertarian version of political rhetoric? Did you get a chance to take "The World's Smallest Political Quiz"? It's linked from the www.lp.org site. Did you wonder why "businesses" and "farms" were lumped into the same question? It's called "crafting a question to guide the response". It's the same principle used in these "top 10 questions" you've posted here.

These aren't "tough questions". These are Browne's "selling points", just like the Dems have theirs, and the Repubs have theirs, and the Greenies have theirs.....ad nauseum. And they're just like the 39 questions spammed to reporters regarding Y2K; all leading, all very carefully crafted towards a particular point of view.

capn, you and I once had a conversation on this board not too long ago regarding how to effect a lasting change in the political system. It isn't through "third" or "alternative" parties; though I don't think that can hurt. It's through the major parties we have now. The only way anything is going to change is if it is changed from within. Adding a Libertarian Party or a Green Party or a Socialist Party or Aunt Jane's Party of Widowed Bakers isn't going to make a damn bit of difference in the larger scheme of things. We have to change the Dems and the Repubs from the inside. Only then will alternative parties have any lasting effect at all.

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, because Browne is, IMO, just another of the horseshitters, with different packaging. I respect you both for a number of reasons, not least of which is your convictions and your willingness to stand up for and proclaim what you believe in. But it's the same for everyone; Brian stands up for his candidate, Anita stands up for hers, I stand up for mine. And IMO, no matter what "candidate" one stands up for, it's the same horseshit with a different scent; each one of them pandering to their constituents. Yes, I'm a raging cynic. Probably comes from living in NYC for 40 years.

FWIW, I think the "debates" are a sham. Without ALL of the candidates, it cannot be considered a true debate. Then again, I think they'd have to rent Radio City Music Hall's stage to fit them all in and it would probably take about a week.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 08, 2000.

Pat,

Yes,I remember our last foray into 3rd party politics and politics in general,it seems to me that what we disagree about is how best to fix what we both see as broken.You believe it is better to fix it from within while on the other hand I believe it is better to fix it externally,because the apple is rotten to the core.

Maybe we can attempt to solve this quandry this weekend over a couple of shots of teqilla : )

BTW,have you checked your email lately?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 09, 2000.

Those were great questions, Unk. Thanks for posting them.

Unk, I think your response to Patricia on #10 didn't address a crucial point:

It really doesn't matter how smart the women are or would be. In fact, left to their own judgment, they could end up making terrible decisions regarding all three issues. The actual principles that bind all three points together are the woman's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- to have the freedom to think, to choose, to act on these principles/rights. The question attempted to highlight why should they have these rights in one of these issues (say, abortion) and not the others?

And regarding #9 -- Patricia, with all due respect, yes -- Congress can certainly make laws in contravention of the Constitution; but those laws are simply unconstitutional. That's when the Judiciary branch should strike them down when they're challenged. The question, though, was structured to get Bush to clarify his position on the Constitution, irrespective of what Congress might do.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.

These aren't "tough questions". These are Browne's "selling points"...

They are both.

For instance #6; Mr. Gore, when asked about the fund-raising scandals, you said you won't answer such questions because they are "personal attacks." Does this mean you should never be held personally accountable for anything you do in office?

How is that question merely rhetoric? Is it, or is it not, a legitimate question whether it comes from a Republican, a Democrat (yeah right), a Libertarian, an independant, or even just some shmoe on the street? If you screw up in your professional life and are called to account for it do you tell your boss "Sorry, I will not answer that, it is a personal attack"? Why should either candidate for the highest office in the land be held to a lesser standard? I am tired of the lies and evasion from BOTH parties, and am baffled as to why more people do not feel the same way. Truth be told, I think most folks feel the same way, and far too many of them have thrown up their hands and just quit voting.

Now, as to the "World's smallest political quiz". The question (not actually a question, it is a statement that you vote yes, no, or maybe as to whether or not you agree with it) reads :"Businesses and farms should operate without government subsidies".

How is that crafted to guide a response? How does the wording make me more or less likely to agree or disagree with it? Aren't both farms and businesses entities that operate to make a profit? Or do you see farms as such a different entity that they should get a separate question? What am I missing? Help me out here.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.

Patricia:

"I respect you both for a number of reasons, not least of which is your convictions and your willingness to stand up for and proclaim what you believe in. But it's the same for everyone; Brian stands up for his candidate, Anita stands up for hers, I stand up for mine."

I wish I had a candidate that I could [with no reservations] get all worked up about. Brian's found his [perhaps more at the local level than the national level], and Unk's found his. I support Gore only because his issues reflect me more than the knucklehead that's my governor. I'm screwed either way. If he wins, the entire nation goes downhill, IMO. If he loses, he comes back to Texas angry, and he's NOT a man that takes defeat well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2000.

What is this thread about? WHINING. Any reason the Liberatrians are ignored?

Hell(like most Americans)I like interstate highways. Sure, selling off all the public land "sounds" peachy till one gives the thing even a cursory glance. Road ends at the first person who decides they are not keen about an interstate running thru their homestead. With it so does modern society and all the Freedoms it affords. Libertarians are not about Freedom, they are about selfishness and whining.

I like having protections and standards to assure I get decent drinking water at the tap. Which is easier Harry Browne? Leaving this water quality issue up each individual thru piles of seperate lawsuits, or using a central body to protect all of us? Which is more efficient? which works better and FREES a person up-to pursue Life Liberty and the chase after Happiness? Should we all drill wells? is that it? Ya real logical and destine to garner widespread appeal.

When did all you whiners forget MOST of what the Gov does has the complete blessings of the Majority? Sure not everything is perfect, far from it, but wake-up please. Do at least understand while many things maybe abhorrent to you, most of what the Government does and is about is done because the Majority WANT it done. If there is a problem it can be traced to imbalances in this process thru the infamous special interests. This hijacking of power has screwed the process.

We are a Nation founded on LAW, what is the big old mystery here? Should this too be done away with? Where are the dam lines Harry Browne? Oh you never got that far and your whole deal is to whine, yep.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 09, 2000.

Anita, no arguments here. Just trying to make a point.

eve, if the laws are unconstitutional, then they will be struck down as such. If they aren't struck down, then the Supreme Court doesn't feel they are unconstitutional. And by putting certain Presidents in office (kinda/sorta), we are the ones who are responsible for the sitting justices; therefore, their decisions theoretically reflect our wishes (note the word "theoretically" -- not perfect, but the best system we have right now). (And we are directly responsible for whoever's sitting in Congress.)

As far as "question #10", my point is that of the three issues mentioned, only one (abortion) is SOLELY a woman's issue. So why lump them together? Again, if he has a question to ask, just ask it; no need to embellish it with rhetoric. That was my whole problem with "the debate". Just get to the freaking point; no need for "embellishments" and "stories"; those should be saved for the "campaign trail". Just answer the damn questions.

Unk, the "question" you used as an example would have been an actual, non-rhetoric question had it been asked as a question and not as a thinly-disguised snide remark. And that is the point I am trying to make. One either asks genuine, sincere questions, or one makes "selling points". And if it's "selling points" you want, then your candidate is no better than the other two idiots you're complaining about.

As to the "businesses and farms" issue, yes, I do make a distinction between businesses and SMALL FARMS (as I make a distinction between SMALL BUSINESSES and "corporate" farms), which the "statement" did not do. Consequently, I had no choice but to answer in a certain way, which then "sealed my fate" as to the "rating" given at the end.

Browne's "questions" are no different.

Thing is, you're trying to tell us that Browne is somehow "different" and subsequently "better" than the two major idiots who are running. I'm trying to tell you that they're all the same underneath; each one's "package" is simply changed to pander to whomever at any particular point in time.

We seem to be forgetting who puts these people in office in the first place; IT'S ALL OF US. **WE** are ultimately responsible and it sounds to me much like the irresponsible parents who blame their brats' behavior on everything but themselves. And frankly, if you want to change the system, institute campaign finance reform IMMEDIATELY and abolish the electoral college IMMEDIATELY. Do these two things and watch how quickly everything changes (not my original idea; heard it from a friend and I agree with it completely).

(Unk, you sure you can't come here next weekend?!?!?!)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 09, 2000.

Gun ownership Should we do away with the Police? Is that what the Libs promote? Well yes they do read the link.

Censorship So I guess it would be no problem for a strip joint to take-up residence next to a day care center? Or for Larry Flynt to put-up billboards of a "big fat titty" around town pitching Hustler magazine. Is this sort of thing the Libs promote? Well yes cept they never think this far.

Trade Here it is said $752 is too high a cost to protect American Jobs using tariffs and trade restrictions. America should be an open flea market. I wonder how many Steel workers and the like think $752 too high a price to pay for their LIFE. Problem is we have too few tariffs and the like protecting the American worker from places like China, remember dittoheads? We spend a pile more for heat seeking missiles to protect our shores but when it comes to protecting our way of life it is just too dam costly and UnAmerican to do that.

One puts a door and a lock on their house, why can't we have similar on our country?

Enough of that Libertarian noise. Do the Libertains make sense? course, but it is simplistic as all hell and unworkable. Looked at it closely and it is self defeating and would lead to a bigger mess than we have now in a flash.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 09, 2000.

Unk,

Grab a flight,you can crash at my place.I may be in need of your assistance to stave them off,remember the Alamo? And God forbid I come back re-indoctrinated,LOL.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 09, 2000.

"...stave them off..."?!?!?!

Nah, no worries on this front; it's a party weekend. No politics, only the tiniest amount of Y2K (need a reason to give away the Y2K Party Favors courtesy of Dan the Power Man), no rhetoric....nothing but fun.

And hey, if you go back "re-indoctrinated", who says it's a bad thing?!?!? (You'd really need to hear that in my Brooklyn accent; would make a lot more sense.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 09, 2000.

Pat,

"nothing but fun" Now were talkin'!!!

LOL,can't wait!!!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 09, 2000.

Doc,

I haven't read your links yet, but...

Most Libertarians (including me) don't advocate the selling off of all public lands, just as they don't advocate the abolition of all government. My position is that lands necessary to house a much smaller government of essential services (e.g., defense, the police, the courts, the EPA, assistance for the handicapped) would be kept.

And just imagine Central Park in private hands -- we could finally WALK through it! Theoretically, yes -- it could be used for development, but if enough people cared, they'd pay fees and give donations to keep it going.

Regarding private ownership of the roads...if your main concern is price exploitation...

Well, if someobody owns and operates the only road in a certain area, yep -- the rates most likely WILL be higher if there's no competition. But profits will start to drop if prices become exorbitant, because alternatives (for example, going the long way around, working more at home, even flying, etc.) are all possible or probable alternatives. Because a road is a large investment of capital, profits will most likely be largest if the rates are kept low enough to get a steady stream of traffic. So concerns like this, while theoretically possible, are, IMHO, very unlikely.

Reasonable zoning ordinances based on the character of the first establishment to do business in an area, boycotts, bad publicity, etc. can go a long ways towards removing the strip club v. day care example as a serious issue.

Re the workers...I don't advocate doing business with communist gangs (e.g., China) masquerading as governments, anyway. That issue aside, keep in mind the benefits the workers are getting...more quality products at reduced prices. Those things tend to INCREASE one's standard of living.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.

mind the benefits the workers are getting...more quality products at reduced prices

Oh ya we are getting better quality products from them KIDS in third world countries, oh ya.

Come on eve, you are no Libertarian, just pissed off.

If I had the time or desire I could rip the Libertarian platform to hell and back,,,go read it. Is it practical? In your wildest dreams will even a tenth of it ever exist? How deep exactly was the thinking behind their "ideas"? And where oh where is consistency? They even claim Russia no longer a threat? Huh, just how many nukes disqualifies one from NOT being a threat? This is politics for spoiled selfish babies.

True Libertarians don't bitch and whine they JUST DO IT. But that defeats the purpose doesn't it? Better to forget one's self imposed plight and blame the world. Rush Limbaugh has built a fortune pandering to the helpless, the whiners, the selfish twits who curse the blessings of life.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 09, 2000.

Should we do away with the Police? Is that what the Libs promote? Well yes they do read the link.

Unmitigated horseshit! LOL. NOWHERE in your link do the Libertarians say that they want to get rid of the police! Your statement is false.

Im pressed for time right now so I will simply say that I do NOT agree with EVERY SINGLE position that the Party takes, but I do agree that the voices for clamoring for more freedom in our personal lives need to be heard, and the Libertarian Party is the most consistent in that regard.

One last thing.When did all you whiners forget MOST of what the Gov does has the complete blessings of the Majority?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The CONSTITUTION was written to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY AGAINST THE WHIMS OF THE MAJORITY!!! Sheesh. Remember how popular slavery once was? Was that Okey-Dokey simply because the majority went along with it? Gimmee a break.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.

One last thing then I must go.

Doc,

When exactly did the desire for personal liberty become selfish whining?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.

Doc,

I can't accept on its face your insinuating all "child labor" as necessarily bad. For starters, you'd need to be very clear as to what constitutes an abusive situation and back it up with reasons.

For example -- what if the child is twelve and works four hours a day milking cows in order to help keep his family from starvation? Is that bad?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.

When exactly did the desire for personal liberty become selfish whining?

Can't give you a date. I do know whining when I see it and it is pretty common these days. Whining is all over the internet and talk radio for example. I dread getting a haircut for fear of the constant whining at the local Barber shops even. Geesh the whining is epidemic. One would think we live in utter hell listening to it. How does Klinton get around and do so much damage and wreck so much misery? Santa Claus could take lessons.

Libertarianism is extremisim. They offer little in details. Point to zero examples of their "ideas" in action, they are about banding together whiners. Might as well be just a social club for the terminally pissed off. They elect Harry Browne every four years should be one's clue to what the real agenda is, and it is plain whining.

Sorry most will not vote for a party basically saying we need to tear down the country. And most share the Liberty values as much or more than a Libertarian thinks he does even.

Where is a detailed plan? Take releasing drug offenders. Where is even a small study of this? an example? Sell your party for crying out loud, where is the BEEF?

I once was a registered Libertarian back in my twenties(one election). Gave it up when it was clear to me they had no action plan. Party was about bitching and whining. Ideas basically amounted to "end this and it will all take care of itself", ya real confidence.

To eve, Someplace we are not communicating. I am talking child labor as in cheap goods based on the fact kids are doing the work for literally peanuts. Talking sweat shops, not helping out the family.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 10, 2000.

Yes whining is all over. Poor folks whining about how they need the government to feed and clothe them. Steel workers whining about overseas competition. Women whining that they should be able to take back that night of sex by aborting a child. Politicians whining about Hollywood exercising it's First Amendment freedoms. Parents whining about bad schools. Seniors whining about the price of medicine and health care. Voters whining about the electoral college. Yup, you're right, it's epidemic.

As to releasing drug offenders, NON-violent drug offenders, I can only point you to the example of Holland. Drugs such as pot are tolerated there and the rate of abuse by Dutch children is far below the rates for US kids. Not exactly a study of release but the drug issue goes much deeper than that. Let me ask you this, what does it gain us to further ruin the lives of drug users by imprisoning them? Most of these folks held jobs and were reasonably productive citizens, whereas now they rot in the clink at your and my expense. And when they do get out they are for all intents and purposes un- employable as they are now convicted felons, even with a booming economy convicted felons are not a high priority on the head hunter lists. What you have done by branding a person with a drug problem as a criminal is to lead them towards a LIFE of crime. If a guy cannot even find a job at Mickey D's what is left for him? Selling drugs? Perhaps even bonking old ladies on the head for her purse, he has afterall attended the Prison University for advanced criminal studies. And so he will likely end up back in prison, we all know how many go back over and over, once caught in that cycle it is tough to stop. And why? Because someone toked a joint instead of having a beer? Do we do it to save the children? Who cares for his kids when he is doing 5-10?

I may not be the best salesman for the Libertarian ideals with which I agree, but my heart tells me what the right thing is, and having the government further destroy the life of an already troubled person is not the right thing. And yet the pot smoker and the coke-head who are running for president feel that this is a fine state of affairs. Afterall, they didn't get caught.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

Doc,

I understand. I purposely started us off with an "extreme" example of child labor in order to ultimately see where you'd draw the line. It wasn't to trap you or anything -- I did it so that I could learn more about exactly where you were at, and show you through examples my take on the complexity of the issue. So -- if it's ok -- here we go down that "slippery slope" a bit more...

What if the cow (in my example)is on someone else's farm, a block away, and the boy's getting paid? Would that then be bad? If so, why?

Regarding imported goods -- Assume same age and work hours and family starvation risk as in my cow example. Remove the cow, assume the child's working three blocks away in a well-ventilated room, at his parent's behest, and has a gentle, compassionate supervisor, and free lunches and bathroom breaks as needed. Instead of squeezing teats, he's lacing shoes at his own (reasonable) pace. Is that bad? If so, why?

Same example, parents are indifferent; child begs for work so he can have money for his education. He's big and strong for his age (twelve), and he gets a job bagging groceries -- and loves it. What then?

Ya see, Doc? Context is crucial, and the issue is not so simple.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

I think the issue here is Extremisim frankly. I do not believe either topic, Drugs or Child labor black and white.

I do not believe the Drug War a failure. Calling it a war and the attached mentality has been THE failure. I would submit most of the problem is from the extremists who want all or most drugs legal. They have guided the discussion to an either/or one for their agenda.

Sorry, Heroin is poison. Cocaine is far too dangerous as a recreational drug. Pot if legalized should have rules similar to alcohol if not stricter. Thus I reject the free-for-all mentality of a Libertarian.

Child labor is complex and like Hunger, is not the simplistic issue most assume. These are not black and white issues.

I think we can surely do better. I also know that the options offered are no option and research into who promotes the options reveals extremists. Does anyone doubt who "likes" cheap labor?

With that said, I doubt the Libertarian method anything more than wishful thinking.

I know we can do better.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 10, 2000.

Unk:

I agree with you and disagree with you on the drug thing. Daughter #2 has been dating a young man who got into trouble with the law when he was 15. Seems an older woman had him obtain a small bag of some drug and the police saw him, he threw the bag away, etc. Because of his youth, he had to wait until he was 18 before receiving his punishment. He spent almost a year at Boot Camp. He spent 6 months to a year after that on "house arrest". He was able to go to work or school, but nowhere else. He met my daughter right before he was scheduled to go to Boot Camp. He did his gig, started college part- time, and got a full-time job. He became very successful as a fitness trainer, and decided he'd like to join the Marines. They wouldn't accept him because of his "record." Personally, I thought his sin would be expunged due to his stint at Boot Camp, but it seems not.

My other daughter receives letters from a friend at Camp Something or Other. She came for dinner one evening with a friend, and I mentioned that she'd received another letter from her friend. It seems that the guy she brought for dinner knows this guy also, and he was "sent up" on a Marijuana offense. Her dinner-mate was a joy, and regarded his friend as one of the most peace-loving people he'd ever met. He was simply caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.

OTOH [and there ALWAYS is another hand], have you been to Amsterdam lately? I think we talked about this one before, but Amsterdam has turned into a hell-hole in the past 10 years due both to it's lax attitude on soft drugs and the ability to receive welfare payments simply by living there. It's soon becoming a Christiania [a small alternative community outside of Copenhagen]. Visit THERE sometime and tell me that society still functions without drug laws. If NOTHING opened my daughter's eyes as to the ills on society from unrestricted drug access, it was a tour through Christiania.

Like Doc says, it's NOT a black and white issue. I object, personally, to the laws that ruin one's life due to one mistake, but I can't in good conscience suggest that legalization, or even Amsterdam's "look aside on soft drug use" is the answer either.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

Anita,

A small area in Europe that pays people to sit around and do nothing, and at the same time does not arrest drug users is likely to draw the worst hard-core lowlife drug users from all across the continent. Therefor the problems associated with drug use in these areas are exaggerated way beyond all normal proportion. Why does that surprise you? But let me ask you this, even though the two areas that you mentioned are especially seedy because they have drawn from the pool of all European drug users, has either Holland or Denmark fallen apart? Of course not.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

Doc,

Let me tell you a little story. It is about a nice guy (from what I've heard, he is not a friend, but a friend of a friend of a friend) who has a problem with coke. He has been in trouble for it before and so got a stiff sentence this time. He has looked for help for his problem but the money for the "war" goes for the battle and the "warriors", not for helping the ones who really need it. So in prison, being a slight fellow, the guy is sodomised and beaten up. In fact, the guys who like his services as their "bitch" have knocked out his teeth, so that he can better felate them.

This is the evil that YOU give your stamp of approval to when you vote for one of the two major parties. Does it feel nice to endorse that? You may have no problem with it, but I cannot do so.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

Gee, Unk; I thought YOU were the one who mentioned Holland. AFAIK, Amsterdam is the ONLY city in Holland which turns their back on soft- drug use. It's not legal, mind you. It's simply tolerated in favor of placing emphasis on hard-drug users. The welfare system exists throughout Holland, and the surrounding countries.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

Anita,

Yes, I am the one who mentioned Holland. We seem to be talking past one another. I mentioned Holland in regard to the rate of drug use by Dutch kids, not the rate of drug use by outsiders who set up shop in Holland. There is a difference.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

Talk about unmitigated horseshit, nice one Unk.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 11, 2000.

Complete hearsay, would never stand up in court. I admit that. The guy who told me the story is not a politician, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt in regard to his truthfulness. Where he got it I don't know.

Doc, if you doubt the underlying truth in that story I'll pitch in a hand and help you dig a deeper hole in the sand for your head. You cannot tell me that story never happened, it happens every single day. But I must say that I cannot blame you for not wanting to see the evil that your position does to the people that you are "helping". It's pretty ugly.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 11, 2000.

Again, this IS NOT an either/or issue Drugs.

The laws are wrong and too many sick users get lumped in with the for profit dealers. This has to change. I am also against mandatory sentencing. This has lead to the jailing of types like in your example Unk. Who pushed this call for more jails? Right-wing extremists. And the News flash for many is Republicans, just like Democrats, are largely extremists. Rare to find a Centrist, a Satesman who stands on principle these days.

It is crystal clear to me the Drug Issue is like most other issues, driven by the extremists, both poles. The average American is against anything beyond a small ticket for Marijuana use. Is in favor of full access for medical purposes and the like. Do we have these as Federal law? Course not, why? The process is log jammed with special interests and does not achieve the will of the People. And anyone thinking UpJohn is not dead center in opposition to cannibas use is fooling themselves.

Problem is the power is all out of whack--by design from special interests. A vote for Al Gore at least addresses this, the MAIN PROBLEM. Gore has stated his FIRST priority, his first action as President will be Campaign Finance Reform. Call me naive but I think this is a major start from the business as usual.

Harry Browne would do better to stand as the party who explains why Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise. Why the Drug War exists largely to increase the profits of the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industries. Why this has come about, and the Free Market solution.

Things will pretty much remain as they are since most do not see a difference between Capitalism and a Free Market. The answer is always BALANCE. Capitalism is about CONCENTRATION across the board. By definition a Free Market system CREATES balance. Capitalism plays well with greed, selfishness, hatred and all that is wrong in the human condition. Not about creating better products or better ways of service, about advantage, market share and taking the short cuts, whatever they are, and whomever gets screwed along the way. Goal is capital, the chase after money not sustainable businesses. It is a LIE. The proponents have hijacked Free market ideals as they have the flag.

Capitalism is one of several components necessary for a healthy Free Market, not a full blown system. We need rules, another critical component for a healthy Free Market. The Libertarian party has little respect or understanding about why we need rules.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 11, 2000.

In reference to the Uncle Deedahs question:

Question: Now, as to the "World's smallest political quiz". The question (not actually a question, it is a statement that you vote yes, no, or maybe as to whether or not you agree with it) reads :"Businesses and farms should operate without government subsidies".

How is that crafted to guide a response? How does the wording make me more or less likely to agree or disagree with it? Aren't both farms and businesses entities that operate to make a profit? Or do you see farms as such a different entity that they should get a separate question? What am I missing? Help me out here.

An answer: Both the supply and demand curves for farmers are highly inelastic which results in large income fluctuations for farmers as compared to other businesses. The solution to stabilizing the food supply has been government intervention, going back, if I remember correctly, to the Romans (the farm question was a big issue during the last century or two of the Roman republic; as in the present this was about the disappearance of the family farm to big agribusinesses, at that time based on slavery). So farms have a long history of being treated as different from other business entities.

dandelion

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), October 13, 2000.