I find it unfortunate that it stated Bob Barr practices law in Georgia with no mention of his position in the Libertarian Party. How can we expect people to know how to do something about the injustices described in the article if there is no mention of the path to overturn such injustices? That path starts with this party and it would behoove us to tell people who we are, not just why. The latter is useless without the former.

Usually, publishers give author's the chance to write their own bio-blurbs. If Barr didn't include his LP affiliation in his blurb, it might be worthwhile to ask him why.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Barr, did that debate with Ethan Nadelmann on the Drug War happen? If so, is a transcript or recording available anywhere on the net?

Actually, there is some Constitutional garbage that needs to be dumped. Particularly the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. I would prefer a change to an Articles of Confederation type structure. I posted a draft proposal over at www.lpstuff.com I think a decentralized confederacy would be much more desirable than a centralized union.

Mark B. -

I'll drink to that.

I have no problem with the basic principle of a federal government at all. The problem I have is that the federal government should be a tool to protect all Americans from threat, not to limit their actions which cause no threat. And CERTAINLY not to organized imposed charity.

The states and municipalities are the proper place for behavior-limiting laws. The federal government should only be concerned with guaranteeing which behaviors may not be limited.

While we're on the topic of Constitutional garbage, what ever happened to Congress declaring war? I want that part back.

Coach, right again! But, which behaviors should states and municipalities restrict?

Along those lines, Coach, how does a visitor know the "rules" when they go somewhere? Signs everywhere? As they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it." You could actually get away with signs if the behavior limitations were so few not to require huge rolls of legal documentation.

The basic Libertarian stance of "only actions which cause harm should be limited" is perfect. If our laws were statements of principle instead of ever-increasing detailed case law, we really wouldn't have a problem. Judges would be left to determine the severity of the infraction, and hey, that's what the Constitution intended anyway.

I understand what you mean though about law varying by region. If you travel to another state, how do you know if you're allowed to turn right through a red light? I think in this case a judge should take into account that a person comes from an area that allows it, when sentencing in an area that doesn't.

I am fighting the battle of blight in my own city, and it is a perfect example of victimless restriction. As a Libertarian, I don't think we should mandate by law how long a person's grass is allowed to be. For the most part I dismiss claims of "I don't want to see that." However, there could be REAL infringement of rights if a neighbor cannot sell his home because of nearby blight. I admit that when I was shopping for a house, there was one that was PERFECT, but we didn't buy it because the next door neighbor had 100 of those cute lawn things - you know, the plywood painted to look like an old lady bending over in her garden - that sort of thing. If that was not next door, we would have made an offer on the house. The owner of the house felt a very real financial infringement.

Mostly my attitude is for people to work out "I don't like looking at it" issues as neighbors and leave the government out of it. People want government to champion their causes becaues they are not so puruasive themselves.

OK, just making sure you weren't talking about bedroom laws, local drug enforcment if legalized by the feds, and other nonsensical items that harm no one. I think some people think states rights means that states can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate federal law. That is not a good purpose for state governments. Take it from someone who lives in a tax heavy, legal nightmare state.

Yeah tell me about it. Michigan is facing rampant business closures, unemployment, a collapsed real estate market, and a state budget $800m in the hole. Our governor's solution is to raise taxes to make up the difference.

Last one out, turn off the lights.

By the way, the first time I ever heard of the Libertarian Party was when I was listening to a FRANK ZAPPA song. A line goes "hey it's the 20th century; whatever you can do to have a good time, let's get on with it so long as it doesn't cause a murder." I played that song for a friend of mine and he said "it sounds like he's a Libertarian."

And of course he was. He advocated MUCH smaller, less intrusive government. He would have been a great candidate.

We miss you Frank!

Coach Jim; I have been an active member of the Libertarian Party in Michigan since 1996. That's when I returned to Michigan.

One of the very basic problems with the Libertarian Party here in Michigan, is we have far too many "fringe" people in places of authority. It's almost like saying, "you have to be a little weird, to be a Libertarian". Libertarian ideas are very mainstream and we need to make sure we put a mainstream face on our product.

First impressions are very important when you are trying to sell. Currently, the Libertarians in Michigan, are not giving the rest of the public a very good first impression.