Once again, another case of the government looking to rob people of their property for one stupid reason or another.

The stupid thing is, even if there was a bald eagle there, the bird would just build a new nest if the tree on which it built its first nest were cut down. As long as the guy doesn't shoot the bird, what's the big deal?

^ Logic for the win!

this is OT, but I cant help it.

"a fear of God" <--- from the most recent article on the mainpage.

I would prefer a appreciation for God over fear.

Religions based on fear and having government policies based on that "conservatism" does not make government smaller or less expensive, or libertarian. All ties between religion and government need to be curtailed.

We need less religious influence over our society, not more.

Timothy, are you talking about the 2 Party Quandries article, or the Iraq War article? The 2 Party Quandries article was written by a Republican, not a libertarian. He ws just pointing out why third parties are good opposing Bartlett's view that they hurt America. I think.

I find that surprising since the biggest critics of the Libertarian Party tend to be Republicans.

In a related story, I was listening to The Mark Levin Show yesterday and Levin stated that a Republican needs to win the party's Presidential nomination by appealing to the party's 3 factions (his words, not mine): (a) economic conservatives/libertarians; (b) foreign policy hawks; and (c) social conservatives.

That's funny because we all know that true libertarians and true conservatives (especially on economic matters) are now as welcomed in the G.O.P. as a white man would be at a meeting held by the Nation of Islam.

"That's funny because we all know that true libertarians and true conservatives (especially on economic matters) are now as welcomed in the G.O.P. as a white man would be at a meeting held by the Nation of Islam."

In fact, the same holds true for true libertarians and true conservatives in the Democratic Party.

I agree Stan. I think some Republicans fear the Libertarians because they know people are slowly beginning to realize that the LP not only stands for some of the core principles of the Republican platform, but actually adheres to them. Harry Browne had a great quote when he said that Republicans campaign like Libertarians, but govern like Democrats.
I keep saying we should promote the LP as a second party, not a third.

I think that the Libertarian party should try to appeal to the Scots Irish faction in this country as they already hold most Libertarian values
Honor Justace a dislike of authority imposed from above
But you can't BS them and overly intellectual agurements will be ignored.. not because they don't understand them..but because they see them as irrevelent

The LP could appeal to MOST groups in this country, but apparently we choose not to. We seem intent on trying to pull fiscal conservatives from the GOP. Is there any talk within the organization of an AD CAMPAIGN to get young people to see that there is political hope for their future? My Republican father is 68 years old. He's the current target of this party for new membership but he's not leaving the GOP. He actually believes they are his only option. His friends all agree with him on that. It just won't work. We need to start with colleges and people who are just learning that April 15th is doomsday and it comes every year.

Nick seems to be saying, and I agree, that the LP needs a formal "College Libertarians" program, and not just now but forever.

Creech, that wasn't what I was saying but if you want to give me credit for your good idea, you'll get no argument from me.

I was actually talking about the ad campaign being our best opportunity because that's what young people respond to -- commercials. I say we give the LP a few weeks, say by the Super Bowl, to come up with something (and a reasonable way to pay for it that we can support) and if they continue to do nothing we start something ourselves.

Several bloggers here have mentioned ads as a way to promote this party and we haven't heard word one from party leadership, yea or nay. No wonder nothing gets done around here. Hoping the Bob Barrs of the world make news every once in a while isn't cutting it.

Are we going to be serious or obsolete? It's now or never. The political atmosphere in this country is ripe for ending this third party nonsense and becoming main stream Party Number One.

I agree with the need to get the word out.

If its the Millenials that you are out to connect with, and budget is an issue, you should do a "very clever" video and post it on U-Tube.

The LP does need to go for broke when it comes to advertising their existence. Most people here in my region, and I am almost positive it is the same elsewhere, believe that there are only tow parties. This needs to change. Just how to go about change is up for debate.

Some people have said that local radio ads can be really inexpensive. If we advertise ourselves as an alternative to the disaster that is the Republican/Democrat thuggery on stations that young people listen to, it could be a good start.

Do we need the Libertarian Party's permission to say "LP.org" on the radio or in print ads?

Nick- When connecting to college-age people I think it would be wisest to focus more on our social issues than taxes and budgets. A person doesn't become concerned with taxes until they actually have to pay them. At those ages they haven't paid that much in taxes.
Also, young people are more socialist in nature (again it's easier when it's other people's money not your own). When hearing about some spending program being cut they think about children on Welfare starving or some other ridiculous thing.
My suggestion is to use Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax as a bridge between the Welfare State and the Libertarian Self-Reliant Society. The Welfare State wasn't built in a day and neither will it be torn down in one. The negative income tax still gives people money for nothing but is cheaper.
For every dollar spent by the government on "the poor" in America (where else can the poor have HDTV's, microwaves and cars?) less than 30% actually reaches the intended recipients. The rest is on overhead, social workers, paperwork, etc. We will still be providing a "safety net" while saving $.
This, like Shrub's Social Security partial privatization proposal (whatever you think about the Patriot Act or Iraq, you must admit that was one of his better ideas.) is a bridge from where we are to where we want to be.
The Beast grew incrementally. We will have to reduce it in parts, not in one fell swoop.

Yeah I was just saying to my Dad the other day how the privatization of Soc Sec was the only good thing Bush was trying. Not his idea though. He's not that bright.

You may be right about the socialist ideals of young people. But, I think they can be convinced. They are more likely to listen to new ideas and maybe they save our website to their favorites and don't visit for a year but when they file those income taxes, they might remember our wisdom and come around. And, since private charities usually operate efficiently enough to give 80-95% to the intended recipients, that's a strong message when compared to the 70% of government waste.