As much as I'd like to live in an ideal libertarian state, I know that it's impractical in the real world. What I want is the gradual removal of unnecessaryily restrictive laws that do more harm than good. Marijuana is illegal, and that turns something that could be used as a legitimate medicine or recreational drug into something that people kill over, lace with strong drugs in order to expand sales, and demonize without any good reason. A better law would be to criminalize driving or operation of machinery while high, and to regulate the sale of it so that users can get a clean, unaltered product.

teph,
the entire range of "freedoms" we have are conditional and extend only to the boundary in which their uncircumscribed expression impinges on a "freedom from" of others. This is how our laws are laid out. Those who live in close proximity to others, for example, are proscribed from exercising their untrammeled expression because doing so is perceived and interpreted as a burden to their neighbors.

Also, to use MrSelfDestruct's example above - he is allowing drug (marijuana) legalization except while driving or using heavy machinery - which seems reasonable to him, I believe. But how many parents would accept their childrens' teachers being high in the classroom? This is just the first such example that came to mind here. There are as many similar examples regarding every "freedom" as there are individual ideas of freedom vis-a-vis responsibility - individual rights vis-a-vis the rights of others.

The freedom to have access to pornography - to use another popular example - butts right up against the desire others may have to avoid being exposed to porn in public or via child accessible channels. Again, this is simply one more example of the larger situation that affects all personal freedoms.

Using this sort of thinking, I'm sure you can see the implications. The result, as always in the polis, is sets of legislated limits on personal freedom, such as we see today. Each rule and regulation is always open to additional legislation and judicial review, of course. So it goes.

The proponents of more personal freedom have only a relativistic position - one that must be balanced with social responsibility as decided upon by the processes of government. Libertarianism is a set of one-sided solutions and does not provide any sort of politically viable program.

I thought that posting the following would be suitable due to the origional idea of the thread:

I THINK THAT ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE THE TWO MAJOR CANIDATES SHOULD VOTE FOR ONE OF THE OTHER CANIDATES!
If that happened, then other politicial parties would rise up and get more than 5% of the votes. That would break the 2 party system in the next election by making it a 3 or more party system! That is what is needed for the long run of this country's future.
I just don't understand how so many people can vote for one of the main two when they hate them both! It defeats the purpose of having that right to vote! It also makes our country look stupid for so many people having the opportunity to care about the government and then waste that very same opportunity so many others would die for, and have died for! The view of the majority of the american people dissapoints and discust me.

This site

has valuable info reguardless of which party one leans toward. After reading through some of the information; it makes me feel like two football teams understanding that whether or not one wins or looses- NFL always wins $$$

That's exactly what the two parties are. I don't remember the details, but I know that the percentage required to get into the presidential debates was raised - by the two main parties working together - after Ross Perot succeeded in getting it.

At least there's on bi-partisan thing the parties will always agree on - and that's that 3rd parties are a bad thing for both of them.