[NewRomeTacitus]

So let me see if I have this strait. The Libertarian model, then would eliminate all Governmental standards concerning product liability, since when drugs are made legal, and people die from taking them, even in small doses, such as PCP's, LSD, Cocaine, Heroin, it is the consumer who will carry the brunt of the inert dangers from ingesting drugs. Etc. etc.

No; some government standards are useful and needed: food, pharmaceuticals and such are tested for good reason...but it would be preferable for those industries to monitor themselves through oversight coalition. I stand by the position that the knowing users of dangerous substances are personally responsible for the harmful effects of their habits. They are also liable for the crime and general harm they may indulge in. Not the rednecks cooking meth up in trailers, nor manufacturers of guns they may use to rob with, nor nuns who may have smacked them during childhood...

The rest of your objection seemed to defend the right to sue over matters both serious and frivolous. It's well known that civil courts have become reality game shows where the jurors seem to be striving to maliciously "stick it to the man" with the lawyers in the role of huckstering emcees. Yet another example of the publics general contempt for the legal system. What do YOU suggest be done about it?

[JABBERBONK]

Once again your argument fails and you have not done your homework, I agree with the Government testing products for consumer safety, however your party does not;

Section III, subsection #3 ;"End governmental interference in consumer affairs by eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and other ineffective governmental organizations. Repeal laws mandating use of safety equipment such as seat belts or crash helmets, which can be more effectively driven by consumer action in the marketplace."