I am curious to see how many people are willing to support a 3rd party candidate. I personally have never been so ready and cannot help but feel that many Americans, primarily former GOP voters are ready for such a candidate. I personally in generic terms consider myself fiscally conservative and socially moderate which the current GOP is exactly the opposite. Guilliani fits this tab fairly well but I have lost faith in the GOP. So, would you vote for a 3rd party candidate and do you think sentiment is brewing in the country for a radical party change?
http://www.lp.org This has provided asylum for many moderates and defected conservatives, myself included. I believe that a lot more people (from both sides) think like libertarians than they realize. They're just used to having to take the good with the bad to maintain party loyalty. (martin, I'm not having the monopoly argument with you in this thread) To answer your question, I almost always vote 3rd party if one is on the ballot. Neither the right nor the left accurately reflect my views, so it would be a waste of my vote perpetuate that nonsense.
I have a general libertarian political leaning, but they have their flaws just like every other party, or atleast they would if they ever had any power. I actually have a question about the Libertarian party. Since they want to legalize drugs, how do they feel about the FDA? How do they feel about prescriptions?
I voted for the Libertarian candidate in the 00 (Harry Browne) and 04 (Mike Badnerik) presidential elections. I will likely support one again in 08. I have also voted Libertarian in congressional elections. I tend to vote Republican in state elections. To answer your question: Hardline Libertarians would be against the FDA. If prescriptiond rugs were bad and killed people the market would adjust and noone would buy them. Other more moderate ones may see the need for some government ofversight, but it would be scaled back greatly.
A moderate third party would be great, but they always seem to emerge on the left of the Democrats (Nader) or to the right of the Republicans (Perot).
i have a system that i use when i go in the voting booth: 1. vote for the libertarian unless: a. i know the libertarian candidate to be an ass or; b. the race is close and i like the republican or or if the specific situation (war) requires one. 2. if there is no libertarian, vote republican. 3. among many republicans i do not know, vote for the one with the most foreign sounding name.
Seems to be putting too much faith in the market system to me. Companies would be inclined to throw drugs on to the market without regard to effects, they'd make their profits before they have to deal with the consequences because they'd just pull the product.
I've recently been questioning how bad the government really is. Libertarians seem to think that they are what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but I think they are too radical.
in the absence of the fda there would be a free market replacement that would give their stamp of approval to drugs. sane people would be afraid to take new drugs until they were approved by private testing facilities that would give out their ok that the thing was safe. i dunno, dont they already have a private compnany that does crash-safety approval on cars? if so, that is an example of what i mean.
In addition, the brand damage to a drug manfacturer would dissuade them from putting out drugs without properlly testing them.
