Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Street who wrote (4214)	9/21/2000 5:20:28 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

Gidday Street, firstly, I'm just cruising by, following the Lebed saga and MamaBear's comment caught my attention and couldn't resist a comment. The NZ Libertarianz is an offshoot of National [Republican] and Act [an earlier offshoot of National]. I'm a member of Act and Libertarianz but have never been a National Party supporter or member. There are quite a few with multiple memberships. Their aim is Libertarian but for electoral success they are supporting half-way house Act. We have proportional representation here, so a party with 5% of the votes gets 5% of the seats in parliament. That way, people can vote more for what they want rather than against something and their vote gets represented. I think there should be a 1% threshold since there are 120 seats and a party could get 1% of the vote and that would be a seat. Then even fewer votes would be 'wasted'. Libertarianz is not all that small. You know, it just takes a bit of energy, empathy and intelligence to get votes [for a good idea]. Act was tiny, but in the electorate I supported, we actually got 24% of the vote which made some eyes open wide. There is timeliness of ideas too. Next election could see a good swing to Libz because Helengrad [nickname for Wellington and named after PM Helen Clark] is taking the country into apartheid and economic doldrums with an all-time low NZ$ vs US$. Mqurice

To: The Street who wrote (4214)	9/22/2000 8:23:26 AM
From: The Street	Respond to of 13056

So, Gore is for status quo on crime, Bush willing to take a look at injustices-- I thought DemoKrats were for fairness.... 3. Follow That Story: Bush Accedes to Police Chiefs' Call for National Commission on Criminal Justice, Gore Waffles drcnet.org In early August, DRCNet reported that the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the world's oldest and largest grouping of police executives, had issued a call to major party presidential candidates to establish a national commission to conduct a comprehensive review of problems in the US criminal justice system (article available online at drcnet.org. The police chiefs cited a number of problems leading to a lack of popular trust in the criminal justice system, including "highly publicized incidents of use of force, racial profiling, corruption, and instances of unethical behavior of police officers and executives." The call was originally issued in March and announced in an April 7th press release from the IACP, but then sank into oblivion, where it would have remained but for the efforts of Kansas City Star reporter Karen Dillon. Dillon, whose work on asset forfeiture abuses has been lauded in these pages (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/141.html#kcstarseries) challenged both the Bush and Gore campaigns to respond the police chiefs' call, as well as to explain their stands on asset forfeiture. Both candidates issued statements to the Star in late August. The Bush statement said that, if elected, Bush will convene a national commission along the lines suggested by the IACP. Bush's deputy press secretary, Ray Sullivan, told the Star that Bush expected the commission "to evaluate changing demands and challenges facing law enforcement and our justice system." According to a Gore spokesperson quoted by the Star, the Democratic candidate would not commit to convening a commission. The spokesperson added, however, that Gore would deal firmly with law enforcement abuses "if he saw evidence that action was needed." The Gore spokesperson added that Gore "supports existing forfeiture laws" as well as more funding for both law enforcement and education. The Bush statement did not address asset forfeiture.