DivineComedy

That is quite a possibility. The only time in history I remember McKinney, Ron Paul, and Barr ever wholeheartedly agreeing on anything was in this vote on Yugoslavia:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll103.xml

DivineComedy

That is definitely true. It would be liberal to destroy all those social things so many union and other such employment contracts have, and had, figured into the retirement plans.

If a person knew Social Security Disability did not exist, and the plant can't open the door on a hot day without violating EPA clean air regulations (in place to save the world at the possible expense of the worker), the employer would have to pay more so the workers would have adequate insurance...

RightinNYC

Of course - running for president is a massive stroke of the ego, brings name recognition, provides you with money, and can help in lots of ways. There are plenty of personal reasons to do it, beyond any sense of self-sacrifice.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

BubbaBob

N Georgia suburban Atlanta county...about 25 miles north of downtown.

BB

BubbaBob

Win? No. Swing an election by siphoning votes from a party? Yes. Think Ross Perot.

BB

RightinNYC

Contrary to popular belief, Perot didn't actually swing that election.

However, running as a 3rd party candidate DOES mean that you have the chance to influence what the other candidates talk about and propose, much like Perot did in 92. If Gore were to mount a 3rd party run, we'd see both other candidates talk more about the environment.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Curious George

The police. Maybe you're confusing libertarians with anarchists?

I wouldn't (nor does our current government, I might add).

A big business cornering a certain market isn't necessarily a bad thing either. In many situations it can lead to a better, safer and cheaper product. In those few situations where companies consolidate, drive up the price, and then get lazy on the manufacture of their product or service, people will look elsewhere. Someone will either create a cheaper, better product or service, invent a new technology that is superior to the old, or wage a PR campaign against the monopoly to bring about a change in its practices.

Business and financial markets, when left alone, are self-correcting.

Through consumer agencies, just like anything else.

The idea that people are going to start dying off left and right because the FDA disappears is another irrational fear people have. Some people think that the FDA will stop poking around inside drug companies and, all of a sudden, drug companies will switch out Aspirin for snake oil. That's not going to happen. Mostly because drug companies don't want to go out of business and company executives don't want to be prosecuted for killing people.

Of course, there's always the first and most important line of defense against taking bad drugs, or the wrong kind of drugs- your doctor.

Right now the FDA may be hurting as much (or more) than helping many Americans by delaying (or disallowing) the sale of perfectly good, life-saving drugs. Many people would be better off having full and immediately access to any drug that may save their life, presuming, of course, that they follow a doctor's advice (just as is advisable when taking any medication).

Personally though, I'm not as anti-FDA as some libertarians. Libertarians, just like Republicans or Democrats, run the gamut from totally radical bat **** insane anarchists to really pretty moderate/centrist in their views. I'd consider myself a middle of the road libertarian. I don't mind giving up a little freedom for a lot more security. What I don't enjoy is giving up a lot of freedom for a little more (or worse, a lot less) security.

Curious George

Probably the only rationalization would be the Bloomberg vs. Huckabee vs. Clinton scenario that seemed possible at one point earlier this year. When the two major parties pick two very divisive nominees, there's an opening for a centrist with a boat load of money and some credible supporters (Senators, Governors, military people, etc.) to step in and make a run.

That would be more of an independent than third party run though.

Third parties, at least the ones we have now, have very little shot of ever getting anybody elected to a major office. Greens, if only because of their name, will forever be seen a single issue party. Libertarians are stronger on that front because their party is based on a far-reaching philosophy, but they suffer from problems of public opinion (it's the party of ivory tower Star Trek nerds!) and a "small tent" mindset (if you don't agree with the party line 100%, you're a socialist, a fascist, or both). Socialist is a dirty word in this country, even if that's what most of our politicians are, so the Soclialst Party is dead in the water. Constitutionalists have a god problem.

So, yeah.

As far as whether or not a vote for a third party is wasted, I don't think so. If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I think both of them would be awful for this country, so I could either not vote or register a protest vote for whomever is the LP nominee. Obviously, the LP candidate will never win, but by voting for the LP candidate, I tell the world what I'm looking for next time around.

I use that same philosophy whenever both candidates are equally worthless.

Curious George

Definition #2, as originally state, is a common (incorrect) definition of conservative. Neo-conservative just describes a sub-set of conservatives who believe in a different kind of foreign policy.

Conservatives have long believed in limiting individual rights. Prostitution, pornography, sodomy, polygamy, homosexuality, gambling, legalization of drugs, censorship of speech and press, abortion, etc., all usually on moral grounds or in the interests of nationalism. So, by laying claim to conservatism as a libertarian, you rightly claim economic conservatism, but also wrongly claim social conservatism. That's where the problem lies.

Regardless, liberal is the more correct label.

Definition according to Merriam-Webster:

lib·er·al - adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

That is, of course, if you follow dictionary definitions. If you follow Definition #2, which is not in the dictionary but how the word liberal is most commonly applied by most people, liberals are socialists.