Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds?

blast writes "Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Who do you think best represents your views? "

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore

It hardly matters, now, does it.

[Colin Smith]

With the existing electoral system, only those in swing states matter. Most of the other votes are essentially discarded.

 

I won't vote as a geek

[astrashe]

With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.

Ron Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious choice [ronpaul2008.com] for anyone who values liberty. Tag it: ronpaul

Isn't there bigger fish to fry?

[w3woody]

I hate to say this, but given the fact that the Commander In Chief is constitutionally responsible for things like dealing with the Iraq War (either waging or withdrawing, as your political leanings indicate), increasing or decreasing the federal government's footprint in things like military spending, the public safety net, drugs, energy and oil, foreign policy, government reform, immigration, infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., etc., isn't asking about technologically-specific issues sort of like arguing over the color of the china on the Titanic?

I mean, beyond setting policy which encourages economic growth, mindful to development issues such as environmental policy, who cares about a Presidential candidate's opinion about relatively minor stuff?

Ron Paul

[John Nowak]

A very clear choice -- He has stated repeatedly that he does not want to regulate the internet in any way. (Most of his other views, immigration not withstanding, are sensible as well.)

Re:Simple

[eln]

I agree. It's unfortunate that he isn't running, I think he would have a real shot. I think he would probably carry a lot of the vote that he carried in 2000, plus pick up votes from people that voted for Bush at that time and now regret it. At any rate, it would make the Democratic primary a whole lot more interesting.

Of course, his campaign would have to bar him from using the word "lockbox" at any time.

Re:Simple

[__aaclcg7560]

An Gore/Clinton ticket would be interesting. It'll give historians and talk show hosts something to talk about for years on end.

Re:What gives you the impression either would be?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we were a proper minority, we'd get the odd politician purely chosen to represent the party cos "He'll get us the nerd vote" we're worse than a minority, we're a nonentity.

Easy - Congressman Ron Paul

[transporter_ii]

A person running that actually has enough integrity to stand behind what he says. Don't think you could say that about another person running...period.

Transporter_ii

Re:What gives you the impression either would be?

[maxume]

We aren't even a we.

RON PAUL

[ThomasFlip]

Is the best candidate for the U.S. Nerds... well he's popular on the net. BTW the entire world should be supporting this guy as well. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com]

My thoughts.

[macsox]

I think that, while it is interesting and important to understand how a candidate feels on issues of interest to you, it is critical to understand two things.

1. No candidate, ever, will share the same views as you.
2. Determining who should be President based on such specific things as their stand on copyrights is an extremely bad idea.

If American society has really become so striated that this is the most important issue to middle- and upper-middle-class white men in their 30s and 40s, then we're really in trouble.

Please. I beg of you. Consider these issues as, to use a universally understood analogy, the flair on the uniform of a candidate. Worry about economic disparity. Worry about who will or won't lie their way into a war. If a candidate promised me that he or she would introduce national single-payer healthcare, address the rapidly increasing disparity between rich and poor (and uber-rich and rich), and would put the lives of our troops above proving a point, I could live with four to eight more years of vapidity and short-sightedness in terms of DRM.

Can I get an AMEN!

[jmorris42]

> With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.

Amen to that. Yes there is a lot of potential for bad stuff in the future if the Internet regulation thing goes horribly wrong. But patents and copyrights probably won't get any WORSE regardless who is elected President.

However all that pales into the background compared to the big issue, survival.

There are at least a million people who would like to cut our heads off/blow stuff up and anywhere between a few hundred million and upward of a billion that, while not having the balls to take up arms themselves would be more than happy to see it happen and/or lend the terrorists aid, confort and political cover to the ones with the AK-47s and the bomb belts.

One of our major political parties, from a combination of mindless BDS and a natural tendency towards spinelessness, is arrayed from apathy through surrender with a few outright ON THE OTHER FSCKING SIDE. The other has nost major candidates paying lip service to winning the War on Radical Islam but giving off strong hints they will at best be like Bush, willing to fight just enough to piss people off but with ho hope of going all in for the win and at worst as bad as the other party.

In reality, you know it's going to come down to...

[SadGeekHermit]

John Edwards Vs. Rudy Guiliani.

First of all, the democrats can't be stupid enough to actually nominate Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They have to win over the red states, and they can't do that with a black person OR a woman. If they think beating the republicans and stopping all this fascist bullshit is important, they'll go with the safe candidate, Edwards.

The republicans will go for the candidate that has the highest name recognition, somebody who has an appropriately heroic aura (even if it's mostly bullshit) and somebody they know will continue their nefarious activities. That's Giuliani.

So you vote for the democrat who thinks we should drop all this "war on terror" bullshit, or you vote for the republican stooge who just happened to be in the right place at the right time and will make it all worse. Those are your choices, guys.

Just to give you an idea of what you have to look forward to under Giuliani if he wins, he increased the police presence in NYC to never before seen levels. He also increased surveillance, and was known to crack down mercilessly on protesters and dissidents. He doesn't seem to care particularly about all those pesky "privacy rights" in your constitution, either. He's all about Big Brother. Hell, he probably IS Big Brother.

Edwards, on the other hand, seems friendly and harmless. And he'll probably turn things around and set this country back on course.

I'm a geek; I'm voting for Edwards. What do you think? Am I right or what?

Re:Ron Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

His personal feelings about abortion are irrelevant, since he holds that federal laws regarding abortion are unconstitutional: It must be left up to the states.

Re:What gives you the impression either would be?

[DragonWriter]

Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

Wrong. Slashdot is a group that doesn't (as a group) have clear priorities, communicate them to politicians, and give lots of money to political campaigns based on them, therefore as a group it doesn't exist to politicians.

Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.

Re:Simple

[fyngyrz]

Gore? Not even close. Gore is an entitlement vector. Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork; worse yet, he'd push the mommy government even deeper into it's trend of legislating against consensual, victimless, informed actions [ideaspike.com]. He's your 2nd worst nightmare.

Ron Paul is by far the candidate that not only represents the "nerd", but also the actual basis for the government, the constitution. The only thing a president can really do (legitimately) is fool with foreign policy, and Paul isn't the least interested in making war on anyone - check out his positions. If we could get a congress that had actually read and understood the constitution (not to mention a supreme court), then you'd really have something.

But we all know what's going to happen: Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.

If you really want improvement, cast your vote for Ron Paul. It won't be wasted, because as the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates... so it won't make a bit of difference where your vote goes if you vote for anyone else. After all, we can't have Bush again. Unless he makes another illegal executive order, of course.

Can you pick based on one policy area?

[antarctican]

Actually the more fundamental question is, can any candidate accurately represent any individual's core beliefs? And is the idea of voting for an entire platform really democratic?

Slashdot readers will be familiar with the debates on issues such as a la carte cable channel selection, and how hard we fight to be given options instead of a one size fits all package deal. So why do we accept it with democracy? Why do we have to pick which of our beliefs are most important and vote for the person who best represents those, while sacrificing other beliefs?

The system must be changed to allow people to vote on issues, or at the very least sub-sections of government policy. Finance, social, military, environment. Yes these issues are all related, but individual opinions may not line up with the traditional slates when grouping these issues together.

So, what candidate will fight for this finer granularity in democracy?

Sadly I think the answer is none. Except for me of course (those in my geographic area, vote for me next time!)

Re:What gives you the impression either would be?

[SuperBanana]

Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

Nobody exists for politicians. They serve at our pleasure.

Don't vote for someone because the polls said they'd win.

Don't vote for someone because they look good.

Don't vote for someone because they say catchy things.

Don't vote for someone simply because they're incumbent.

Don't vote for someone because they promise you something, because they're not paying for it: we are.

Vote for someone because you think they represent you. Your primary concern, for example, with any incumbent - is how good a representative they've been.

Meh, you could do worse, I suppose

[spun]

If you absolutely have to vote for a conservative, you could certainly do worse. Of course, he's really more libertarian, with the implied support for strong property rights that entails. Let me use a quote from him to point out the absurdity of the libertarian position:

Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless.

If that's true, then without money to buy a press, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor. What good is the right to life if you can't afford food? Where is liberty if all land is private, and you own none? I've said it before, libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions, and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom.

Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. They want the freedom to do whatever they want without the responsibility that goes with it. Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.

Re:What gives you the impression either would be?

[Opportunist]

And most of all, judge them by their deeds, not their words. I have met so many people who listen to the spin and the promises, forgetting immediately what they have done the past 4 years.

Judge them by what they do. Choose your candidate by his past record, not by his promises for the future, for words can lie, acts cannot.

Re:Bill Richardson

[geekoid]

07/12/1996 Definition of Marriage Amendment Y
07/12/1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Y

So if your not Gay and you are his brand of christian, then it's cool!
At least you can protest you aren't happy with america any way you... oh mayube not:

Flag Desecration bill Y

Re:What gives you the impression either would be?

[CleverNickName]

And for the love of zombie jesus, don't vote for someone because you'd like to have a beer with him . . . we all know how that turned out.

A woman making up her own mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Man: Hey, want to have sex with me and get knocked up?
Woman: No.
Man: Oh, uh... alrighty then. See you later.

Re:It hardly matters, now, does it.

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually that is not true. The votes in the swing states are divided approaching evenly between parties. That means the candidates have to work hard for any undecided's. In the non-swing states, the votes count just as much, sometimes more, but everyone knows who the overwhelming majority are going to vote for. If we got rid of the electoral college, only the votes of people in high population states would count. If it is simple majority of votes, who gives a s$$t about Alaska voters, there are probably more undecided's in Chicago than all the voters in Alaska (and certainly more in the greater metropolitan Chicago area). The biggest problem with our Presidential elections is that all the media really pays attention to is the "horse race", who's ahead in the polls, who's gaining ground who's losing ground. The news media don't really tell you about a candidates stand on an issue unless it is one they care about, and even then they distort the position. Sometimes they distort to make a candidates position seem closer to the ideal, sometimes further away. I remember one election (state or local), candidate A thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5; candidate B thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 5, Item 4. The local press all reported "Candidate A is opposed to Item 5, Candidate B favors it".

Re:Why NOT to vote for Ron Paul

[KermodeBear]

Not allow women to make up their own minds?

What about making up their own mind to spread their legs in the first place?

Sorry to be crude, but people need to take more responsibility for what they do around here.

Re:Can I get an AMEN!

[Guuge]

No, the armies of Satan are not marching. Put down your assault weapon, and put down your bible too. You've bought into another over-hyped threat. The *real* enemies, as far as I'm concerned, are the criminals in the government. Yes, I said criminals. They break laws. Not just stupid laws like circumventing copyright measures or jaywalking - real laws meant to protect you and me from oppression. I don't care what party they're from. I want them *all* rounded up and brought to justice. Otherwise, what will prevent future leaders - of any party - from doing the same thing? I don't get how people can sit around and talk about compromise while this is going on. Nothing our government does, from Iraq to Immigration, is going to be done right unless this problem is addressed.

Yeah, religious extremists are bad, especially when they get violent. I agree that many politicians don't seem to be on the right side of that issue. We should be fighting *all* religious extremism - foreign and domestic. Too many would pander to the religious nuts in this country while pretending to oppose those in other countries (and of course wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process). But it's not the Armageddon scenario you're painting.

Ron Paul

[psykocrime]

Ron Paul is the best choice for Americans, period, not just nerds. He's the most pro-freedom candidate out there, and the only one - IMO - who's qualified to hold the position.

Re:Simple

[ThisNukes4u]

I agree. Put the social programs closer to the people so that those running them are more accountable and the people have a greater say in which are provided and how it is done.

Re:Ron Paul

[psykocrime]

I can't fathom this slashdot fascination with "net neutrality." If a provider spends millions or billions of dollars on
fiber optic cable, routers, etc... why the heck shouldn't they be allowed to sell different qualities of service and charge
differently for them? Shouldn't a VOIP provider who needs lower latency to avoid jitter, be able to sign up for
a connection designed for VOIP?

For that matter, we *already* have a tiered system of selling bandwidth... you get a T1, that's not too expensive, but you only get 1.544MB of bandwidth... you need more, you pay bigger money for a T3, etc. Allowing ISP's to use QOS tools is not this big evil everybody is making it out to be.

And personally, I trust the free market to handle issues like this a lot better than government intervention.

Re:Ron Paul vs. Rudy on the Iraq War

[Chris Burke]

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

and from the sounds of it is thus the only person who was standing on that stage who is not an idiot.

Invading Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true. He probably thought that just luring us into Afghanistan would be enough to weaken us, but then we went and not only got ourselves embroiled in an even bigger quagmire, we also took out a huge enemy of his for him. The only way in which bin Laden could have been made happier is if we had gotten involved in an even bigger quagmire by trying to take out an even bigger enemy of Osama's, namely Iran. Thank God we didn't; Iraq is an episode of American Idol compared to what invading Iran would be like.

We do not excuse - but we must understand.

Nobody fucking understands the difference anymore, and it's made us retarded. If you even imply that the terrorists are not completely insane, completely evil, and driven by nothing less than the demonic forces of hell to kill, then you are condoning their behavior. If you try to discuss the actual motivations behind their actions, you are just making excuses.

We are deliberately avoiding understanding our enemies under the guise of patriotism, and as a result we don't understand our enemies and thus, unsurprisingly, we are completely inneffective against them.

I hate all politicians, and most leaders.

[OldHawk777]

Mike Gravel: http://www.gravel2008.us/issues [gravel2008.us]

If I was to pick one bad apple, out of (nothing other than) rotten apples in a basket.
Gravel jams the "status-quo" bullshit and lies back up the ass of the other leader-clowns
and fraud-leaders (like Bush and Hillary), pseudo-patriot politicians/generals (like
Chaney and Franks), faux-prophet kings (like Falwell (thankfully dead) Roberts/Robertson,
Bin Laden...)....

GIVE U.S. FREEDOM FROM THE THREAT OF ALL MEGALOMANIACS/PROPHETS [AKA: Dogmatist]!

Re:Ron Paul would be a horrible president

[Copid]

Ahh yes, and overnight put thousands of small businesses out of business. Again, like it or not, illegal immigrants do the work americans refuse to do.

Without coming out for or against the issue, I'd like to add something to that statement. "Illegal immigrants do the work Americans refuse to do at the current market price."

Re:Simple

[Lemmy Caution]

I agree - with the proviso that we have immigration policies between states.

Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian

[LiveFreeOrDieInTheGo]

Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party [constitutionparty.com] as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.

Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States [archives.gov]. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party [lp.org], you should review the Libertarian Platform [lp.org].

Leaders are required to rule a country not nerds

[singhparul]

You can look at india where both prime minister and president are nerds. They lack leadership skills. You need a person who can represent rather than hide himself in books.

Re:Simple

[stinerman]

Indeed it was. That doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional.

The problem when you ignore the constitution for "good" programs, you must also ignore the constitution for "bad" programs. Either the feds have the power or they don't. We don't get to pick and choose when they do based on which party is in control of the legislature.

Re:None of them - no, ONE of them.

[Rigid_Glitch]

Republican Stooge [ ]
Democrat Stooge [ ]
Ron Paul [x]

Why should ron paul be the geek candidate? He is the only one who has consistently opposed unconstitutional expansion of federal powers, including the regulation of speech, internet, and what you eat and smoke.

He also was on the banking committee for several years and is one of the few candidates who understands the massive difficulties our fiscal policies have caused since introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1916.

Most people have their heads in the sand about the shit that's really going down today, as a result of this leviathan federal government, and our empire abroad. Lets go down the checklist for tyranny and see how the US matches up.

1) National ID card and tracking database. (german accent) <i>"Papahs pleese! Show us yoah papahs!"</i> Total information awareness collects data on everyone.

2) Warrantless searches. NSA is scanning a large percent of US citizens email traffic (illegally). Sneak and peek searches authorized for FBI.

3) Right to a fair Trial / Habeus Corpus. Nope, that's gone too with the Military Comissions act of 2006. They can kidnap you on US soil, lock you up indefinitely and torture until you go insane (see the Jose Padilla case).

4) Martial Law. Wha? Nope. It's real. President now has the authority to declare martial law for... "Other Reasons" (unspecified). It's in the law!

5) Property Rights. Loooong gone my friend. Since the 80s brought in 'civil forfeiture' they can take your house, boat, clothes for a marijuana joint. Want to pay someone for a blowjob? You lose your car. Carrying large amounts of cash on you? Sorry, that's ours too. Want to earn some money? Nope the IRS will take a bunch of your income, although there is no LAW permitting them to do it. (Look It Up)

6) Concentration camps. Excuse me, <b>what?</b> Yes, the USA now has about 800 concentration camps dotting the countryside.

7) Free speech. Umm yeah well you still have it ~in theory~, but are you gonna speak your mind when the above shit is all plausible?

And we've still got people watching tv and voting on american Idol.

If that's not the kind of government you want. Start educating yourself and others on limited constitutional government. De-fund the american empire abroad and the police state at home. Get the film 'Money as Debt' and Aaron Russo's IRS film "Freedom to Fascism".

If you can read and think. It's your duty as a citizen to educate and lead joe six-pack and sally soccer mom to start demanding their rights back.

Ron Paul is our wake-up call! Restore limited constitutional government and Rule of Law!

Re:Simple

[stinerman]

Actually states' rights is the belief of the minority party in the legislature.

Everyone falls back on "leave it to the states" when they have no power to affect the change at the national level. Once they get in power, sticking up for states' rights falls by the wayside.

We can see this in action with respect to the Republican party. They were for states' rights for most of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s. That was because they were the minority party during those years in the House. They gained control in '95 and made the transformation to "big government conservatism" right around 2000 (if not before).

Re:What gives you the impression either would be?

[ScrewMaster]

Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.

Squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that. Some groups have influence that is far out of proportion to their actual value to society. Personally, I think we need to form a Slashdot Geek Squad and send some of the more literate and charismatic members among us to Washington to properly educate our lawmakers on these important technical and scientific issues.

Always assuming that such a thing as a literate, charismatic Slashdotter actually exists.

Re:Simple

[fyngyrz]

Don't you think the duplication of bureaucracy among the states is a waste of taxpayer money?

No. For instance, what works for New York State, a verdant, wet and well populated region, will not work for Montana; we have other environmental issues. Socially, we're also different: Actions taken legally in Connecticut (for instance, that the state can steal your property under eminent domain for the basically evil purpose of getting more tax revenue out of it), are 100% illegal in Montana for the specific reason that we have our own bureaucracy and they aren't quite as batshit insane as those legislators abusing the citizens of Connecticut. Texans can't sell sex toys (poor bastards), but we can. In some states, atheists can't hold public office. Unbelievable, but 100% true. Please keep both the feds and your own state's ideas far, far, away — really, if you want these laws, by all means, but keep them to yourselves. I'm sure you don't want our idea of what is good law forced on you, either. People significantly differ in outlook by region for both social and practical geographical reasons.

State's rights are critically important, likewise it is important that we stop the feds from illegitimately taking over everything they put their nasty little fingers on. Take a look at what they've done with the commerce clause if you want to see just how out of their tiny little minds they are.

Re:Simple

[shaitand]

'I agree - with the proviso that we have immigration policies between states.'

If by that you free the free and unfettered ability to travel and move residence between states then I agree. After all, it defeats the point if one can't move away from states with bad policies and into states with good policies.

Re:Simple

[fyngyrz]

After all, it defeats the point if one can't move away from states with bad policies and into states with good policies.

It also removes a useful remedial effect: States with bad policies would see a population (and revenue) drop, while states with good policies would see gains. This would tend to send a wake up call to the worse states, which would act, based on economic pressure, to adjust the bad policies to be more in line with what people actually want. The more homogenous the states are, the less leverage the citizens have. Voting with your wallet (and your feet) is a great way to say "no thanks, buddy" to politicians that are out of control. With the feds running everything (and they pretty much are trying to), the differences erode and the citizen's power to force change with their feet/wallet erodes at the same time.

Re:Meh, you could do worse, I suppose

[stinerman]

I agree completely, even though I'm supporting Ron Paul.

I'm not a libertarian at the state level. I'm a pretty radical socialist. If Ron Paul was running for my state rep or governor, I wouldn't give him the time of day. I'd be looking for someone to the left of Kucinich (if there is such a thing).

I'm a libertarian at the federal level because forcing my ideas on to the people of all 50 states is a bad way to get things done. You and I could be happy in our liberal paradise with our socialized medicine, $10/hr minimum wage, decent public schools, etc. The fine people in Utah wouldn't.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, the "red states" are a net negative on the treasury (they take in more federal money than they dole out in taxes). They're always trying to shove religion down our throat as well. Cut them loose and let them turn their population into a bunch of idiot hicks that can't get a job. We'll do just fine without them TYVM.

Let the politicians in the shitty states screw up their own states AND NOTHING MORE.

Re:Wrong on nearly every point

[qortra]

Well, let's see. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong.

Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.

No, libertarians advocate liberty. Even people who have nothing can choose to use their mind and their hands to create wealth for themselves. Libertarians just don't think it should be somebody else's responsibility to make wealth for the people who choose not to make it themselves.

libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions

Libertarians do provide mostly simple answers, but the questions aren't as complex as you think they are. They only seem complex because they've been answered by corrupt bureaucrats who are beholden to conflicting corporate and minority interests.

and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom

I am a libertarian. I will directly answer any challenges to my beliefs. I will also not accuse of you hating freedom (most people I encounter, including you, truly do love freedom). However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal. Moreover, you must expect that a Libertarian will often claim that liberty trumps utility. If you don't believe that liberty could ever be the paramount consideration, then become a utilitarian and form your own party.

I've said it before

Yeah, you should probably stop saying it, huh?

Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Libertarians believe that every action has a consequence, and everybody is responsible for his or her own actions through the consequences of those actions. Libertarians also believe that society is responsible for somebody, that person is no longer completely responsible for themselves. So, libertarians advocate that these people be solely responsible for themselves.

Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.

Funny, I would say it's the philosophical equivalent to pleading "give me liberty or give me death."

Re:Simple

[fyngyrz]

Either the feds have the power or they don't.

Oh, they have power, all right. They out and out stole it. What they don't have is authority. More to the point, there is provision in the constitution for making any changes that the country agrees are needed. This removes any possible justification for the feds acting outside the constituting authority (and I am sure the authors of the constitution knew this full well.) Most federal activities are 100% illegitimate by definition, because no law that violates constitutional boundaries (enumeration of federal powers on the one hand, rights of the people and the states on the other) can be legitimate. Enforcement is based upon power, not authority, because the only legitimate authority the feds have, or ever had, is that delegated to them by the constitution. Either they are going to obey it, and be legitimate, or they are not, and no one thing in the constitution is safe from abuse, which is exactly where we are now.

Tarring the Dems with the misdeeds of the Repubs

[Infonaut]

Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork.

Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.

You're using an interesting technique to tar the Democrats.

First, haul out the old canard that the Democrats are less fiscally responsible than the Republicans. That may have been true when Walter Mondale was running for President, but those times are long gone. The White House and Congress have presided over an enormous porkfest over the last six years. Instead of inefficient social welfare programs, it's being spent on Halliburton and Blackwater. The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party. As long as you spend it on war, somehow it's not as wasteful as spending it on social programs. The Democrats have become more fiscally responsible than the Republicans, at least at the national level.

Next, blame the Democrats for the failures of the Republican Party. Ohmigosh! The Democrats haven't suddenly extracated us from Iraq! You seem to think that the Democrats have been doing nothing, but there has been a heated battle on Capitol Hill over funding the war. The budget is the only weapon the Democrats have in this situation, and everyone knows that if they go nuclear with the budget, they'll lose their leverage. It is Bush's complete refusal to listen to the will of the public, to budge even one inch, that is keeping us in Iraq. Let's put the blame where it really lies, with the self-proclaimed "War President."

the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates

There are differences. Look at where our national priorities were under two terms of Clinton and compare that to two terms of Bush. Look at the issues that are most important to Republican voters (Guns & God), and the issues that are most important to Democratic voters (Jobs & Environment). The fact that both parties have money behind them doesn't mean that there are no differences between them.

That said, I think we need more choices. A choice between two parties doesn't adequately represent the range of views in the American electorate. Paul certainly looks more credible than any third-party candidate in recent memory. Unfortunately, the sort of government Paul wants is a radical return to a prewar ideal that may be impossible to achieve, given the fact that government is the largest employer in the United States.

Re:No Difference Between Normal People & Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Use honesty as the first criteria in picking the candidates.

That is a pretty good criterium.

Among the current set of candidates, the least dishonest persons are Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Dennis Kucinich.

Damn, all of them are on my mental "Do not vote for" list. Hillary is there because I've experienced government-run health care firsthand (in Canada) and don't want it here. Ron Paul was actually on my list of potential people to vote for until the debate where he made the comment about the reason bin Laden attacked us*. Obama seems to lack a clear platform, and McCain seems to be a bit of a media whore, but the real dealbreaker with those two is their support of the immigration bill**. Kucinich, well, he's just hopelessly non-presidential.

Any other ideas? With such a long campaign for 2008, I feel like by the time the election roles around, there won't be anyone left I can vote for without getting sick to my stomach.

* Ron Paul suggested "we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it", then proceeded to cherrypick one of the many grievances bin Laden has listed. Among other things, bin Laden has demanded we convert to Islam, complained about the "Andalusia tragedy" (end of Moorish rule in Spain more than five centuries ago), and generally deplored everything about the West. We're target number one because America is perceived as the leader of the western world, and striking a blow against us is symbolically powerful. I respect the ideal of strategic isolationism (i.e. walk softly and carry a big stick), but blaming ourselves for 9/11 is nuts.

** I have a number of problems with the immigration bill, but here are my four biggest: (1) As someone who as actually stood in line at USCIS immigration offices, filed out the paperwork in quadruplicate, and gone through the process (helping my wife get her green card), I know that it is utterly unrealistic to expect the USCIS to be able to handle anything like twelve (or twenty) million extra cases, especially since the bill would require them to process Z-1 visa applications by the end of the next business day. This requirement will result in the USCIS diverting resources away from legal immigrants, punishing those who stayed within the law. The system, which is already a few notches past the breaking point, will collapse completely. The system cannot be fixed simply by Congress throwing some cash at it--it will take years, and it certainly woudn't be fast enough for this immigration bill. (2) The bill involves the creation of a massive employment eligibility database. In other words, in order to let you work, your employer has to verify your information checks out. After seeing the fine job the government has done with bad data on the No-Fly list, do you really want to trust the same people to run a database that controls your right to work? (3) It's too easy for someone to sneak into the country after the Jan 1 2007 deadline, then fake the documents that supposedly prove (illegal) residency prior to that date. (4) The bill's success is dependent upon effective border security. Without that, this is just a repeat of the amnesty passed by Reagan in the eighties. Now, "regular" Z visas can't be issued until certain border security goals are met, as certified by the president, but the bill allows the issuance of temporary Z visas before the border security targets are met. But what happens if we don't meet the targets? Anyone really think the temporary visas would be revoked?

Re:It hardly matters, now, does it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Alaska is an independent state that has temporarily joined a union called the United Sates of America. If there's no advantage to being in the union any longer it will secede. ...unless of course we get another shithead like Lincoln as president, a sentimentalist who blathers on about some "a house divided cannot stand" shit.

Re:Major Nerd issue : H-1b

[randall_burns]

First off, look at Japan and Korea-they have no huge immigration-and no huge foreign borrowing and lots of folks there find engineering an attractive profession.

Who is "we" here. You are indentifying with what Malcolm X called the Slave Mind. Someone locked into the slave mind identifies with their master so much they don't worry about their own interests. Read my article [vdare.com].

Guest worker visas aren't that different than slavery from an economic standpoint. When slavery was introduced in Virginia, the planters there either had to use slave labor-or go someplace else. Long run, the costs of the civil war alone far outstripped any short term economic gains from slavery-which were quite questionable and concentrated in a few hands.

H-1b was a measure to address an economic reality: wages cannot be sustainably lower than the cost of workers to live and reproduce. The engineers of the 60's and 70's didn't have that many kids-so by the 90's economics was setting in. Corporate predators reacted by doling out visas which cost them nothing personally-but often diluted the value of US citizenship. Each of those visas could be sold for at least $100K-and really has a theoretical value closer to $300K. Of course a corporation can get a hard worker when they have something like that to dole out-that costs them NOTHING.

The fundamental structure of the US and global economy is bad. Both are predicated on massive liquidation of assets in places like the US-which is what this immigration really is.

If H-1b were gone and US trade was balanced, we'd see a lot of rich folks making a huge adjustment-and engineering would be a very attractive occupation for Americans. Now, I don't think the corporate leadership in any existing major US tech companies would survive. Those folks would be so distrusted they simply couldn't stay in business. But new companies would arise to take their place quickly. BTW Microsoft is VERY H-1b dependent-and Redhat isn't. I can easily imagine restriction of immigration killing microsoft which I consider a very good thing for the industry long term.

There are real limits to outsourcing-particularly if the leaders of the US had the discipline to stop borrowing hundreds of billion of dollars per year.

Re:None of the above: Vote with your feet.

[radtea]

I've had just about all I can stand of American one-party-two-names politics. (Not that I actually know that it's better in Canada.)

It's almost too much better.

Canada is not without its issues, but one of our more interesting traditions is to throw up nutjob fringe political parties every couple of decades. These parties never make it to power, but they wind up having a lot of influence on the democratic debate, and drive the more mainstream parties to evolve or risk getting pushed out by the interlopers.

In the past century we've had the Social Credit (eventually watered down to various conservative flavours); the Progressives (merged with the Conservatives to make the oxymoronic "Progressive Conservatives"); The Canadian Commonwealth Federation, an agrarian reform socialist party that morphed into the New Democratic Party, a British-style labour party that is currently trying to reinvent itself as a green social democratic party with no success whatsoever; and most recently the Reform Party, a populist social conservative party that merged with the Progressive Conservatives to create the new Conservative Party that is currently clinging to minority government status, and this in a nation that was five years ago in fear of one-party rule by the Liberals.

We have a fertile and diverse political spectrum, although for all that we still have plenty of politically homeless people (as well as a fair number of the other kind) whose votes are up for grabs in any given election. The Green Party is desperately trying to become a national political voice, although their recent shift to the left isn't helping them any.

I've lived in the US, and my taxes plus health care costs there were very close to what my taxes are here. Our health care system is imperfect, but we live longer than Americans and have better health while doing it. Health care reform is happening as we speak, as enterprising Canadians find ways round the draconian Canada Health Act, which practically makes it illegal to pay for medical services that are nominally covered by provincial insurance programmes.

It is also possible to incorporate federally online, for a total cost of $220. We are in the top few nations in the world in terms of delivering government services over the Web, and the climate is currently VERY friendly to small business.

You can't own a gun legally unless you take a safety course and fill out some forms. If you want to own a handgun you'll have to become a registered collector. There were about 150 people killed by guns in Canada last year. Yes, you read that right, and no, I didn't drop any zeros. We kill each other with knives and blunt instruments, mostly.

We are a foreign, sovereign, nation. We are not like you. And frankly, we'd rather you stayed home and fixed your country. We'd really like that a lot. But if you're really fed up--come on up, and be welcome.

Re:Ron Paul!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are things I disagree with Ron Paul on, especially his anti-immigration stances

Anti-immigration? where do you get that from?

He's against illegal immigration. Not immigration.

I really wish people like you would make that distinction.

-john

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, but there's the problem (well, not quite there, but in the vicinity): this will force states to pander to business much more than it will force them to pander to people. large corporations will gain a further advantage in negotiating with and manipulating government policies, because the bodies they're trying to manipulate will be smaller and they'll be able to essentially demand, "do as we wish or we'll go to another state where THEY'll do it."

don't get me wrong, i think government should be scaled back. actually, i'd like to see the day where the notion of governments as we have them today seems like a frightening anachronism. but these things do not happen in isolation from other problems. reasoning about these issues shouldn't be so simplistic.

It doesn't work that way

[jfern]

Most people aren't going to change states because of their state's policies. Also, environmental issues of one state effect the environment in other states.

Taking this idea even further, would you be pissed if you were a landowner and your next door neighbor decided to build a power plant and a toxic waste dump on his property? Clearly anyone who doesn't like it should leave his property. But you are on a different property.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of us don't believe in the man in the sky. But we also don't believe in the self-congratulatory masturbation that atheists generally engage in.

Re:Simple

[SuperStretchy]

In a way I think it reflects the idea of a higher authority that they are accountable for. A catholic isn't going to commit genocide because he/she knows that there will be a reckoning one day.

That's not to say that atheists are going to start another holocaust, but its all a matter of subconscious public perception.

Re:municipal socialism

[brightmidnight]

Have to disagree. Giving the rights to the states does protect the minority-- if you live in a state with policies you don't like, it's much easier to change than at the federal level, and if not you can move to another state with policies more amenable to yours.

perceptions

[falconwolf]

I think a lot of libertarians would be mighty offended by you calling them conservatives. Libertarians, are, by defenition, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Many get lumped into the republican camp, but just as many vote democrat because of the social issues.

I think one reason many take Libertarians as conservatives is because supposedly conservatives were for small government. The founders of the Libertarian Party were dissolutioned Republicans during the Nixon era. And while some Libertarians do come from the Republican party others come from the Democrat Party as well. I first voted in 1980, for Jimmy Carter. Then in 1984 I voted for the Dem candidate, though I don't recall who it was. However in 1988 I learned about Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party he was the Presidential candidate for and I voted for him then.

Falcon

Hitler Was Great For Nerds

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

If you wanted to do engines or rockets or radio. If you wanted to do medicine or communications or energy experimentation...

Every nerd discipline was a great beneficiary of Nazi encouragement and largess.

So, be careful for what you wish - and where you prioritise.

Re:Simple

[doug]

The "Clinton Years" actually started under Bush 41. And then Clinton got to ride the boom of the 90s. He was lucky to be at the right place at the right time. Reagan had the same sort of thing coming after the stagflation of the Carter era. Please be realistic here: The President has a lot of influence on the economy, but it isn't like he directly controls it. Mostly it is luck and timing. And whomever is in the white house gets the credit or the blame. Did Hoover really do all that much to cause the Great Depression, or was he just the one in office when the house of cards came tumbling down? It sucks, but that is how it works.

That said, as much as I dislike Clinton, for better or worse, the economy was good during his tenure. He didn't upset the apple cart (although he did try with pharmaceuticals), and the rising tide lifted all boats. Since he happened to be in office at the time, he gets the credit. Since prolonged growth like in the 90s is unreasonable, his successor (GW) was left in a difficult position. GW's idealism led to his budget cuts, which left the Feds short on cash. This coupled with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan hurt. Decreased income while incurring major expenses is never a good thing.

Re:Simple

[fyngyrz]

Most [atheists] haven't really thought it through.

I have. I'm rock-solid atheist, that is the literal meaning of atheism, one without belief in a god or gods. Care to try to find any cracks in my decision-making? Or was that comment a throwaway for the sake of flaming?

Re:Simple

[Lendrick]

If only it were *really* that simple. I personally have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, despite disagreeing with him on many things. But neither Ron Paul nor Al Gore would (currently) be able to affect the changes nerds want. Not because they don't want to, but because it's up to Congress to make and repeal laws. A president makes a great figurehead, but if nerds want to be represented, they need to start replacing their representatives, which is a long and slow process, if it's even possible at all. Nerds would essentially have to band together and gain a *majority* in a significant fraction of the 50 states and 435 districts. Let me know when we get started on that.

Wow! Is this a clueless "Ask Slashdot", or what?

[frank_adrian314159]

I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about?

This has got to be one of the stupidest questions ever asked. Slashdotters are not some group of insulated nerds living divorced from the real world (I mean, if your parents go broke, whose basement are you going to live in, huh? :-).

Off-hand, issues that I find most important are little things like the Iraq War, the disastrous ecological problems and looming energy crisis we need to face, the national debt and potential meltdown of the economy, trade imbalance and job outsourcing, to name a few. Compared to these, the technical things that I care about (i.e., copyright law, internet control, etc.) are so far down the list of issues that will form the basis for my vote they don't even register. Sorry if that's not nerdly enough for you, but if you really make your choice on technical issues at this point, you really are a clueless geek.

Re:Simple

[sumdumass]

They don't need a majority, they just need to control what would be the majority. The difference is that with both houses split the way they are, ten representatives total could determine if something passes or not. And if it isn't anything that effects nerds, then it is in house political favor time. "I will vote on this if there was something to take care of this issue we have been having" and boom, It gets past, the stuff was done and there isn't a majority of anything.

Some things they would support normally, but when there is the threat of losing the vote, they hold out and make a change then come home bragging. If conditions persist with the houses being split this close, hope is not lost or even far away. Now more then ever could an independent make a difference.

Re:municipal socialism

[opencity]

hmmm that argument can be made ... but ...

What about voters rights. Suppose the majority in a state is ruthlessly supressing the minority like, say, the south until 1964?
Should Mississippi be allowed to roll the clocks back and put racial barriers up to prevent voting [insert Rove ref here]? Suppose Hawaii votes in Sharia? A long shot but for the sake of argument. Do all the females have to move or submit?

My feeling is there's a middle ground but I may be an optimist. Civil rights for all, gay marrage state by state.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty common among republicans to hold the position that presidents are just 'along for the ride' and have little power over what happens during their term, that the economy is just 'too big' for any individual even the president to have any real affect on it. This is because their presidents recently have pretty much sucked (the two bushes) compared to the democrats who were somewhat decent (carter) and exceptional (clinton). If you shift the credit and blame away from the president to fate or circumstance then you can pretend 'your side' isn't responsible for so many fuckups.

The president has a huge amount of power to direct the country. He has the effective power of 1/3 of congress to craft legislation (by strong-arming congressman) and he single-handedly controls the entire executive. He sets the tone for the country and how others view us -- just look at how Bush turned almost universal admiration into almost complete loathing.

Since prolonged growth like in the 90s is unreasonable, his successor (GW) was left in a difficult position. GW's idealism led to his budget cuts, which left the Feds short on cash. This coupled with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan hurt. Decreased income while incurring major expenses is never a good thing.

Yeah poor Bush wasn't the driving force or enabler for Iraq, or the trillion dollars wasted there, or the so-called budget cuts (which were actually tax cuts, NOT budget cuts). The fact is that Bush could have single-handedly stopped any of those things. But he didn't because he's a really bad president. He's not just 'along for the ride' or 'happened to be elected at a bad time' -- he caused these things. The buck stops at Bush, whether you or anybody else wants it to.

With Clinton the country started out fairly bad and got much better, for the entire time he was in office. With little Bush the country started out pretty good and got steadily worse in pretty much every metric one can name. Just look at buying power, adjusted wages, crime, debt, reputation -- anything, the chart shown steady progress under Clinton followed by steady decline under Bush. If the president wasn't greatly responsible for this then we'd see arcs in the metrics and we don't. It's a myth that it takes decades for a president's policies to take effect, a myth told by those who want to believe their bad presidents weren't miserable failures.

Re-taking our ideals, our desires, our country.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

I have been speaking against the top-down strategy since Ross Perot. It's high time people realize that a top-down strategy simply will_not_work. It is as if we are looking for fundamental, system-wide instant gratification - this will not happen! Though I disagree with him on certain issues (I have not found a single elected official with which I agree about everything), I respect Ron Paul and his views immensely and I think that his position on those issues comes from the right place.

That being said, the best way to fight the corruption of our elected officials, as well as the destruction of our democratic _society_, is to start at the bottom. Local and state officials are very important here. If we want it to reach the highest levels of government, we have to start on a good foundation and make it ubiquitous enough so that a wave of change is unavoidable for the higher levels (Legislative and Executive branches) of our federal government. Not only will it make for more complete change once accomplished - but it will be a more fundamental and long lasting change. Not to mention, it is easier to start at the bottom (less competition, less of a barrier to entry, etc.)!

As per the society part of the equation, we have to do our jobs as citizens and willing to make extremely tough decisions. Thing is, those decisions must be made on as accurate and complete a set of information as possible. In order to get this set of information, we need a free press that feels the need to give us that set of information. As it stands, the majority of the press is basically owned by a few corporations who "give us what we want", rather than what we need (re: above). It is our job as citizens to expect better from the news than who won American Idol, whether or not Anna Nicole Smith's custody was given to the boyfriend or whoever, or even O.J. Simpson. That is not to say that these aren't newsworthy events in some cases, but we as a society must demand that we get the_information_we_need_before_the_information_we_ want.

I have been voting in a bottom up strategy for years now - third-party candidates only in local and state races, the big two in congressional and presidential races. Sometimes, people need to see that their contribution will matter. If those of us who desperately want change in higher offices want to convince others to help us, we must show that them it _can_ be accomplished and then we show them how.

Sometimes I look back on the Revolution and wonder how they did it. I sometimes wonder why people think it was easy. It's as if sometimes some people think that the founding fathers just decided one day, "Screw that King, we are going to change things", and then the next time they woke up, it happened.

But we all know it was much more difficult than that. The idea of liberty and freedom did not happen in a day, it was a long hard process of convincing everyone they could that
A) it's a good idea
B) it's possible
C) it's worth the effort
and
D) the effort itself

The process of attaining it did not happen from the top down. Yes, the founding fathers were, for the most part, higher up on the socio-economic ladder than most people. However, even they had to build this idea from the ground-up. Building from the ground-up is the way we can get it back.

Libertarianism would work great...

[Scudsucker]

...in an isolated hamlet of a few hundred people. In a nation of 300 million, it would be an absolute disaster.

Re:Meh, you could do worse, I suppose

[headonfire]

humorous impact of my previous post aside...

because, and i've said this again and again, corporate controls were put into place for many very good reasons over the past hundred years and more. in places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener. Slightly more benign but still a lie, substituting red snapper (an expensive fish meat), with tilapia or other similar low-cost fish with a lie on the label, because most folks can't really tell the difference anyways. Or not so benignly, subsituting pufferfish for monkfish and killing a few people with puffer toxins.

Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.

I won't disagree that the government is still bloated and sick, but letting corporations have the run of things is going right back to our darkest times of industrial history.

Let's take it back even further, back to the middle ages, where a few folks got together some Might and made themselves Right by it; throwing England (and France) into a black period of ultra-poor peasantry and super-rich lords. Folks with money, and lots of it. Folks who essentially had licenses to print the stuff with giant monopolies and vile market tactics, copying good ideas, slaughtering or slandering competition, sabotage... Stuff that goes on even today, though far more subtle.

Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite. Hell, we're headed in that direction anyways, as all of the safeguards of the common people are chipped away, old loopholes in law found or new ones introduced. The safeguards that were put there by the founders, to prevent exactly that from happening.

Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites? think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else? that's not right, and that makes you no better than the ones up there now, or the ones that were up there 500 years ago, the ones who have always climbed up there. bloated and fat with the sweat of the everyday person who really just wants to get on with life, enjoy it while it's here, do good by themselves and their neighbors, and die honest and happy.

People will do anything for a buck.