I get a degree in Religious Studies, you’d think I’d get that right. Thanks, Phil.

One thing you should know: The philosophy of libertarianism (what is called “small-l” type) is much larger than the Libertarian Party “big-L” Libertarianism. Most libertarians don’t actually belong to the Party; many, in fact, deliberately eschew it. Some even think it’s counterproductive. (I don’t belong to it anymore myself, though I don’t find it a hindrance to the libertarian cause.) The Tea Party movement is more complicated as well; there are some Republicans in it and some libertarians, but it seems to be a mainly conservative movement. Likewise, there are quite a few boisterous bigots in it, but I don’t necessarily find it to be a bigoted movement.

I think the problem in elections is that it basically comes down to two choices. You have tons of choices of what burger to eat, what car to drive or what shoes to buy, but for some of the most important things going on in your life, you only have two major parties. There’s a reason Washington backs financial restrictions.

As annoying as conservatives are with their arguments against government health care, their basic premise is right: You don’t want government making health decisions for you. If only they understood that we don’t need to be embroiled in conflicts all around the world.

As for the idea of majorities NOT being political mandates, I agree with you. Here’s something else that’s pissing me off – those in favor of the health care bill are phrasing it as a fight of the Democrats against the Republicans. But not everybody who votes Republican – not even everybody who is against the current bill – calls themselves a Republican, or agrees with the party. Most of them just call themselves conservatives, which encompasses a lot more than the GOP. For instance, it also includes the majority of the assholes in the Tea Party Movement, which is not, the last time I checked, officially associated with the Republicans. A lot of far, far-right conservatives refer to themselves as Libertarians, although this is confusing to me as they don’t vote for or participate in the official Libertarian party, and a lot of them seem to think that Ron Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket in the last primary election.

My point is, our elections are always about two parties and two candidates, one more or less conservative and one more or less liberal. Most people (like myself) are only going to vote for a candidate who has a clear chance of winning. I have a history of voting Democrat, but there’s no way in hell I’m going to align myself with that party, especially since the current administration keeps making decisions I don’t agree with. Of course, given the choice between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, whom are you going to pick?

The way I see it, I don’t get to determine what happens in the world or whether the human race is even going to be here tomorrow. I have so little control in my life as it is – I can’t force companies to hire me or schools to accept me, or even my body to feel healthy enough to function regularly on a daily basis – so if the government wrests control of my health care decisions from me, what can I do about it? Not a goddamn thing but try to deal with it. Maybe this is why so many people in the United States are on some form of psychiatric medication.