A vote for Salmon against principles for Libertarians

I appreciate Shane Dale's Nov. 4 column titled "Calling all Libertarians: We need your help," which was written "just for us Libertarians." I feel the need to explain to Dale why I did not vote for Matt Salmon in Tuesday's election.

Before every election, the voting public is lulled into believing that the country will be ruined over the course of the next two to four years, unless we vote for the "Republicrat," whose name is preceded by the correct letter. However, the voters who judge government policy based on a consistent set of principles can see that the overwhelming number of issues affecting our everyday lives are never even brought up in the "debates." While the Republicrats appear to argue about whether or not the words "under God" should appear in the Pledge of Allegiance, the necessary debate about the constitutionality of federally subsidized education is silenced. Other key freedom issues such as self-defense (i.e., gun rights), criminal procedure, land use and government licensing are not even subject to a vote, let alone brought up for discussion.

Everyone who went to the polls to vote yesterday is a rabid libertarian with respect to the liberties that they care about. Unfortunately, freedom is an all- or-nothing concept. For example, Matt Salmon's support for the War on Drugs necessarily creates a conflict for property rights, as the soldiers on the front lines carry out unconstitutional asset forfeiture, whether or not the accused has been found to have drugs on their person or on their property. Salmon's infringements on the freedoms he doesn't cherish, such as the right to one's own body, necessarily threaten the very concept of freedom for all Americans. This is likely an unintended consequence, but after all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

An election is not a damn lottery ÷ you don't win a prize if you pick the winner. If more people understood this instead of trying to play a sort of election sports contest to help "their team" win, we might have something resembling the constitutional republic that the founders envisioned. Instead, we have business as usual.

The question is this: Are Republicans interested in freedom, or is their goal to simply take the slower road to the hell that is collectivism?

Chad McNichol
Class of 1999

A thank you to the UAPD for protecting the campus

I would just like to take this opportunity to praise the University of Arizona Police Department for their brilliant allocation of resources. Last week, when three professors were getting gunned down on campus, the UAPD struck back against crime by unleashing a flurry of parking tickets. The same week as the terrible shooting at the College of Nursing, I was ticketed for "parking within 10 feet of an unmarked crosswalk." Whatever that means.

It is unfortunate the UAPD can't protect people as they do the unmarked crosswalks north of campus.

David Homes
mechanical engineering
graduate student

Don't just lose the symbols, forget GOP, Dems altogether

After reading Wednesday's "Issue of the Week: New political party mascots," I formulated an opinion. The various columns inspired me to come out with what I've discovered to be the solution to all of the problems in the American political system.

Similar to the columns I'm responding to, I also believe that we should ditch the donkey and elephant, but with them, we should completely scrap the parties themselves.

There are several reasons for this. The first is perhaps an obvious one: As some of you may have noticed, the political parties are somewhat corrupt. Both party's politicians can be thumbed for some kind of illegal act, and nobody doubts in the least that both parties would sell their souls for more green. These problems are inherent when two parties are deadlocked into constant competition.

Another reason is the fact that we, as the electorate, have no real choice between the realistic candidates. As many people have said throughout the history of the dual party system, it's the lesser of two evils. Suppose somebody wants a pro-choice candidate who's also for gun control. The only time you'll find any chance of having a candidate such as that would be in the Tennessee gubernatorial race. Even then, with 13 independent candidates receiving any votes, none got so much as a single percentage point.

Finally, how many voters have actually cast a ballot against a fellow party-man when he or she is corrupt, incompetent or about 20 years past his life expectancy (Strom turns 100 this Dec. 5)? The policy of ticket splitting is ridiculously uncommon and, by looking at yesterday's elections, becoming even more so. Of course, ticket splitting alone has caused almost as many problems as it could solve. The deadlock that we've experienced since the Î70s, due to opposite parties in the White House and Congress, has prevented many good bills from passing.

So what, do you say, is the solution? How can I justify such a rant? Easy: With a dozen or more viable political parties, the likelihood of finding a candidate that matches your particular political views would become far more likely. Also, in order to pass legislation, systems of alliances between parties that agree on a certain issue could be formed. Furthermore, representation would be far more accurate on a wider base of issues. This would enhance the American political system, making it more efficient and more democratic.

Aaron Klassen
molecular and cellular biology sophomore

Police have responsibility to make our campus safer

Due to the recent events on campus, I would like to know what changes have been made to secure our safety on campus. I do realize we have a huge campus and policing every classroom is not a viable option. The police have learned from this experience. I would just like to know what they are doing now.

Furthermore, what about personal protection of students in the classroom? What are we supposed to do if this happens again in a classroom? Given that the campus is banned from carrying firearms, one could not posses a weapon on campus even with a concealed weapons permit. I am not going to risk a felony charge by breaking the law. What about anti-terrorism training, or tips to help out the student if this situation in a classroom happens again?

All we are armed with is knowledge and a .5mm mechanical pencil.

Aaron Moore
East Asian studies junior