Here are three questions you can ask to help determine if the claimant is truly libertarian, or just a someone jumping on the trend:

(1) When is it right for the U.S. to send troops to another country?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “never.” Some libertarians may also extend this to emphasize that the U.S. has no business occupying countries, though may see some well-targeted actions against an immediate threat as a means of self-defense. The assertion that the U.S. has any business forcing its ideas on another country is an empirical claim. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to be the worldwide hero for human rights. Individuals and private organizations can choose to be part of these efforts, but this is *not* government business.

(2) How should law define marriage?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “there should be NO laws defining marriage, let alone rewarding or punishing an individual based on marital status.” Some libertarians may also remind us that current marriage laws were intended to discriminate, and thus the only proper solution is to repeal them, not to supplement them with further discriminatory allowances or restrictions. In essence, the government should not be in the business of defining “marriage,” and if two consenting adults want to enter into a legal civil union, there is nothing that should restrict them from being able to do so.

(3) What’s the best solution for raising taxes?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “get rid of all government spending that requires taxes for funding.” Some libertarians will go further to explain the more we submit our money to the government, the more of our individual power we surrender to a political agenda. As there is no such thing as a “common good” that all individuals will agree on, majority rule is inherently flawed as a means of providing “what’s best for everyone.” Libertarians believe that “what’s best” is to leave an individual to be responsible for himself and his personal possessions, provided he does no harm to anyone else.

BONUS: What is the solution to the drug problem?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “repeal the laws against illegal drugs.” Some libertarians prefer to ease in to this, knowing public opinion needs time to recover from the scare tactics of the anti-drug movements of the last few decades. However, almost all libertarians agree that lives could be spared, and even saved, if some drugs (like marijuana, which has been consistently proven less harmful than alcohol) are made fully legal.

The overarching theme here is “non-aggression.” The most basic of libertarian principles, on which platforms are based, is outlined in the following often-used pledge:
“I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS”

If a person is not willing to take such a pledge, I would dare say his libertarian claim is questionable.

The damage this is doing to public perception is frightening, but it is still reversible while the First Amendment still stands.  One way we can start a return toward the respect of multiple political views is through our word choices.  We need to be accurate, logical, and truthful rather than assuming, emotional, and conniving.

The use of "bipartisan" systematically perpetuates the assumption that there are, and only will be, exactly two political parties.

If we can change the use of this word alone, I think we can positively affect public opinion.

Of course, Republicans and Democrats are truly "bipartisan" in their efforts to give little or no credence to the mere existence of another party, preying on public apathy that this is the permanent and accepted reality.

The truth is that there are, and have always been, other voices and other views that do not align with the Republican or Democratic parties.  These voices are too often stifled because they are not backed by large marketing engines with limitless financial resources.  However, over the last decade, these voices are getting louder, in part because of the Internet.  Thanks to an increasingly educated and reasoning public, so-called "third-parties" are poised to get their voices heard both during campaigns and in the halls of local and state government.

The two-party assumption is dead.

Will you join with me in using "multipartisan" instead of "bipartisan" in conversations and writings?  How do you feel about a movement to write letters to the President, asking him  to bring "hope" to people with individual voices by replacing the word "bipartisan" in his press conferences and speeches?

This morning, I asked myself, “What’s the environmental impact of politicians on Earth Day?”

Let’s see… according to this article, the Obamas and Bidens decided to hold their publicity opportunity at Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens, which is 7.1 miles away from the White House. There is no indication on how the President, Vice President, their families, and their security details all went those 7.1 miles, but I’m inclined to think they didn’t use the DC Metro.

Those in attendance were wearing screen-printed T-shirts especially for this year’s Earth Day event. I’m not sure if they used green screen printing on unbleached material, but the photo on that web page does show some very bright white T-shirts. I’m inclined to think the Student Conservation Association chose whoever could put together the shirts in the fastest and cheapest way possible, like any good businessperson would do.

The article also does not indicate where the trees came from that were planted. If they did not already exist at that location, then they must have been grown somewhere. Typically, such trees would be grown at a tree farm. I did find several tree farm results in the DC area, mostly local vendors that resell trees, but I’m inclined to think the trees described in the article were trucked in from further into Maryland or Virginia. Either way, they were brought in from somewhere, and most likely by a large carbon-emitting vehicle.

Of course, nationwide, there have been plenty of other politicians and municipal groups putting on their own tree-planting publicity stunts for Earth Day 2009, too, complete with T-shirts and fliers and politicians and trees, all trucked about from place-to-place to smile for the cameras.

Is Earth Day just for the benefit of politicians and tree farmers?
I’m inclined to think… yes.

As an American, I am offended to my very core that MoveOn.org is directly insinuating that an Amercian would be effecting “disastrous effects that last for years” simply by voting for a Republican. It is an insult to my ability to reason for myself what is best for *me*, or what I think is “disastrous.”

MoveOn.org states that they launched the “fun new ad and site encouraging young people to talk to their parents about John McCain.” When you watch the ad, though, please let me know if you think I’m just missing the “fun” in it, or have a legitimate reason to be concerned about the message.

Personally, I am offended that MoveOn.org insinuates that someone is failing Amercians by voting for what he believes to be the best candidate to represent him. (After all, that’s what the election is for: for people to elect who will represent them and their views.)

Additionally, it is completely against what is means to vote to ask a person to vote for some supposed greater good, especially if it goes against what that person believes in. “Greater good” is a subjective concept that changes as fast as the seasons and has more simultaneous definitions than there are words in Webster’s unabridged dictionary. I would prefer my government represent the people, not some subjective ideal of a single segment of those people.

Now, full disclosure here… I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I am an American who has the privilege to exercise my vote in the manner in which I choose. Also, as a Libertarian, I will support and defend MoveOn.org’s right to use the media in this way, even if I disagree with the message.

Quick reminder to all: Unless the winner of the election gets over 50% of the vote, remember that the majority of the country is actually voting against him and would prefer someone else. *refreshes poll data websites*