Pennsylvania is not a Fusion State. That being said there are some loopholes and exceptions, which might give some hope in winning a court challenge. In NY they are reported for both parties, and expected to caucus with the larger party (or, if endorsed by both majors, with their party of registration).

The religious nutcases in the Constitution Party would never endorse a Green or Libertarian candidate...although, with social conservative Bob Barr at the helm...meh, maybe.

I agree that the word "nutcase" is less than charitable, and shows a bit of narrow-mindedness that is far too often demonstrated by some atheists.  (I also find great irony in the fact that most of these same atheists often accuse people who hold religious beliefs of being narrow-minded for believing in something without empirical evidence.)

Having said that, please don't take this as an accusation of the previous poster.  I have no desire to start a flame war here.  I'm simply pointing out that this poor choice of words might lead someone to these kinds of conclusions.  Again, I don't pretend to know the mind of the previous poster; just commenting on how one might interpret what I see as a poor choice of words.

On the broader topic of Libertarianism's compatibility or non-compatibility with Christianity, this is an entirely subjective and individual decision, because there are so many beliefs out there that can be called "Christian" that one cannot generalize about them.  But I can say a few things about it, from my point of view.

The only serious disagreement between the Contitution Party and the Libertarian Party (and I confess to not knowing the CP's platform in depth) is abortion.  I'm pretty sure that the "nutcase" accusation is probably referring to the CP's opposition to abortion.

There is a common misconception that opposition to abortion is always based on religious conviction.  This is not so.  My personal opposition to abortion is based on Biology.  If you ask any biologist, "What is the beginning of the life cycle for insert_species_here?" they will invariably answer, "Successful fertilization and cell division."  If this rational, scientific answer is applied to Homo Sapiens, then the unborn human has the same rights to life and liberty as any other human.

There is definitely an issue between Scripture and some forms of Libertarianism regarding the role of government, and the use of force.  Paul states in Romans 13:1-7 that governments, taxation, and law enforcement are "appointed by God" and that Christians should obey them, as long as they are not forced to disobey God.

This view fits with the minarchist view, but not with the more radical anarchist ideas of some Libertarians.  And I find this to be a weakness of the Anarchist views.  Not in that they don't agree with Christianity or the Bible, per se, but that I tend to agree with the Biblical view of human nature as flawed and "sinful".

Marx, for example, saw the horrible behavior of people who were empowered by economics (owning the means of production).  So he thought that by removing private ownership of that economic power, that society would be better.  This proved to be false, of course.  Why?  Because it merely changed the basis of Power from the private owners to the State.  So the same KIND of horrible people (those who desire power and authority) sought party standing rather than economic power, still controlled everything, and still oppressed the weak.

Now many still point to the State (and/or the people with the money BEHIND the state) as the evil oppressor.  I would agree.  But is the answer to have NO State?  I'm not convinced.  I tend to believe that a greatly weakened State, with a justice system staffed by non-activist judges and juries, is probably still the best answer for enforcing law and order.

Well...  I've rambled quite enough now.

I will freely admit that what I know about the Constitution party is very little. Assuming though for a moment that there are some issues where you would be in agreement and would cooperate with them to reduce the size of government, it seems imprudent to call them "nutcases". As for my misunderstanding of your point, you are the one who called them "religious nutcases". You also did not answer whether you consider me a nutcase , or are you reserving the right to express that opinion later.?

Samantha

I know that they are not a "party" but is anyone working with PAcleansweep? It would seem to me that there are some common goals.

Samantha

I guess then the question is, will he be endorsing the Libertarian Party Ticket and will he help get the party on the ballot?  I know a few folks who think Russ walks on water, it would make it easier to get their signatures.

Will Ron Paul be endorsing Bob Barr? This of course would be helpful.

Samantha