Slashdot Mirror
Ask Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik
Our first interview subject for politics.slashdot.org is the
Libertarian Party candidate for US President, Michael Badnarik. You can read his blog to learn more about him. Standard Slashdot interview rules apply: Post your questions today in this discussion. Moderators do your thing. We'll select ~10 questions, and hopefully get answers later this week.
Other than winning, what hopes do you have for the Libertarian Party in the 2004 election?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Regarding our current system, what do you think can be done to encourage people to vote for third party candidates? It seems to me that most people still feel it's a "wasted vote."
Also, editors - great theme!
Can we get interviews with Bush & Kerry? I'd love to know what they think about Jib Jab's "This Land is My Land". ;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
How does the Libertarian Party, whose platform is a complete free market economy with personal responsibility, expect the economy to prosper with the recent corporate scandals such as Enron?
It's clear it's always going to be a two horse race. What motivates you when there's zero chance of you getting into power?
Regarding your description of free trade vs. state corporatism at your website, How can we prevent the propagation of Multinational corporations without resorting to government regulation? Is that form of Government regulation a necessary evil, or is there a method for preventing the formation of huge multinationals and monopolies without the government restricting free trade? If so, how would this method be implemented?
Let's make a difference
Where do you see America in 5/10/15 years under its current leadership? Where do you see America in the same timeframe with you as the president? What broad steps will you take to get us there?
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Seriously, though I know what the answer is likely to be. Politicians probably have bigger things to care about, But this is /.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I tend to hold a Libertarian point of view but you have NO chance of ever being elected President. Aren't there more viable methods to get your viewpoint heard such as PACs or lobbyists?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Mr. Badnarik, as president, would you support breaking up monopolies such as Microsoft to enable competition?
Thank you.
In my experience, a lot of what the libertarian platform stands for makes a lot of sense and I whole-heartedly agree with. The problem is, the parts that I don't agree with seem absolutely batshit insane (i.e. privatizing sidewalks? WTF?). So my question is basically, do I find myself agreeing with you because I'm a little crazy or disagreeing with you because you're a little crazy.
What are you views and hopes for privacy and security for the citizens of the internet age, and how do you proactively aim to safegaurd and give back our rights that have been eroded away. (INDUCE act, PATRIOT act, et al)
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
What's your view on the Patriot act? What, if any, parts do you think need to be changed, and why?
What obstacles do third party candidates have to overcome to get on a state ballot? How do they differ from how Democrats and Republicans get on the ballot?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I have voeted Libertarian the last 3 elections but this year the stakes are too high. You know you can't win. Have you considered "Deaning" your supporters and asking them to vote for Bush or Kerry depending on who you think should be President (besides yourself)?
This
Geeks want to know.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The downside of removing the safety net is that there will be people who don't have the skills needed to succeed; we can't all be the best at what we do after all. Any system has winners and losers. What is your plan for the losers under your system? Charities only do so much after all.
314-15-9265
Given the current political climate of entitlement, pork-barrel spending, and district vote-buying, how can we get this country back into compliance with the spirit and letter of the Constitution?
Because you've failed to follow the links in the post. http://www.lp.org/
Michael Badnarik = I'm a backhand lier
Anagram of the day? (go on, test it! and yes, it isn't perfect)
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
When somebody you strongly dislike is running, it's very tempting to vote for the person who is more likely to win against them rather than the person whose views you agree with more.
What is your response to the people who say that a vote given to a third-party candidate is wasted and should have gone to one of the main two parties, if only to make sure that the "bad candidate" doesn't win?
How do you feel that you will do against Green Party candidate Nader and why?
Zip then fasten or fasten then zip?
Mr. Badnarik, a two-parter if I may ...
1. If elected, what stance would you take on the PATRIOT Act, DMCA, and INDUCE?
2. Would you do anything to try and reduce the influence of nutjob organizations (Fellowship, C-Street Center, etc) in federal politics? For that matter, would you do anything to return Washington to citizens and take it away from lobbyists/corporations?
vodka, straight up, thank you!
How are they wasting the nations resources?????
Why are they so wrong just because you don't agree with them?
The structure of the US voting system is such that two major parties appear to be the only stable political alignment (though on a couple of occasions, one of the major parties has imploded and been replaced).
Given this, why is a 3rd (4th/5th) party a good use of political resources, rather than explicitly trying to shift one or both of the major parties toward your viewpoint?
... his name itself tells us he's BAD! Instead, vote for Michael Goodnarik!!
How can you even begin to be a viable choice if you don't have candidates across the board in a majority of electorial races. Even if your positions are fantastic on the issues without at least a glimmer of support from the congress you are dead in the water.
Q: How would you be able to lead and govern effectively when you would very little support from the congress?
at least in the presidential election. If you truly want to make changes in the american system of politics, third party candidates need to win on a state by state level... not in the federal elections. This will achieve nothing.
Of course, nothing much is gained in american politics by third party candidates because winner-takes-all, thus you have 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th parties just stealing votes from the primary (most electable) parties.....
Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc parties make sense but not in america... They are truly fucked. Sure there are a few "independent" candidates out there but thats truly the exception.
Do I have a question ? Ya, When will you be withdrawing your candidacy from this race ? That's the only question that's of any importance. One that Ralph Nader will never acknowledge, will you ?
Skype Me! username: john_allen_mohammed
Howard ran for New York Govener under your party's name. What do you think about:
Howard's fight with the current FCC
Howard's hard turn Left
Howard Stern being your FCC Commissioner.
This
...considering you don't stand a better chance at winning the election than the drunk homeless guy I saw pissing on the sidewalk this morning.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Do you believe it is the U.S.'s responsibility to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of american lives going around the world kicking "brutal dictators" out of power? Do you think Hussain had anything to do with 9/11 and do you think he had chemical, nuclear and biological weapons stockpiled as Bush claimed.
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property. Private owners can evict anyone they want for whatever reason. If there is no public property, how are free speech rights protected? Would there be any free speech rights at all in a Libertarian world for people who aren't well off enough to buy property?
You failed to grasp the point of my decidedly unsubtle question.
Common, everyone is thinking it, who do think will win? And if Kerry looses what do you expect to see out of the current administration?
Are you going to do something about compulsory schooling ? Are you going to free our children from the government's iron fist ?
/.)
(cf. John Taylor Gatto, as seen earlier on
Could you explain your belief that the United States is to blame for 9/11?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Because you've been duped by the Republicrats into believing that in the political world there are Democrats and Republicans and nothing else.
Democrats and Republicans are ideologically different, but they agree on one thing: third parties must never be allowed to gain significant power in government.
Do you believe that the U.S. Government has the right to invade countries run by dictators like Saddam Hussein and liberate the people by establishing a free society even if those countries do not threaten the United States?
In a nutshell, how does the libertarian principle of non-initiation of force apply to foreign dictators? Who or what has the right to unseat these dictators?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They're not wasting "the nation's resources" - they're (arguably) "wasting" their own resources.
I am an ill-fitting member of one of the two dominant political parties. I have been interested in the past in libertarian ideals and thoughts and did some amount of research.
My understanding is that libertarians have a belief system where individual are free from regulation and rules.
This seems like a great way to live until I start running some of the possible scenarios and consequences to my family, specifcally my children.
What sorts of regulations and rules if any do libertarians believe are necessary to prevent the descent into "survival of the fittest"?
It's his time and money, he can do what he wants with them. (Although GWB and JFK probably think that they can do a better job of telling you what you should be doing with your own time and money.)
And he's not wasting the nation's resources. The LP will not accept federal money to run their campaigns, even though they wouldn't get any anyhow. (Isn't it nice how the Dems and Reps set up a system under which only they are allowed to use our nation's resources?)
Yes, we should all just sit back and take whatever our masters want to give to us.
Don't be a jackass. You run because you want your ideas to spread, to give them a forum and maybe, just maybe, make other "mainstream" candidates pull towards your line of thinking.
Much of your platform involves removing troops and money from foreign lands. Although many people agree that we should focus on home before abroad, how do you respond to critics that say removing support from the UN, the World Bank etc. will cause the global economy to collapse?
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
How soon after getting elected will Americans have the ability to use marijuana legally? Will there be a 5 day waiting period for the purchase of bongs under your Administration?
I have seen several of your posters that include, among other things, the following bullet point: "Every Federal Regulator that we fire produces 150 new jobs, enough to re-hire all of those federal regulators and the able-bodied poor."
What I wanted to know is, how does that work exactlly. If I were to say fire a building safety inspector, an Air Traffic controller, or an inspector with the FDA how would that produce jobs? And, how would we guarantee that no adverse effect (salmopnella in the food) would result?
How are we going to get people to realize it's not just a two party system, and some of our greatest presidents were neither Republican or Democrat?
Don't Tread on Me
Do you find you have problems keeping the whole Dewey Decimal system straight? What do you think about their licensing fees?
Pardon me - hold on a second.
What?
Oh. Libertarian. My bad.
You have no chance of winning and the majority of the populace will not even have heard of you by the time they vote. What do you hope to accomplish by running?
Dr. Rick
- "It's such a fine line between clever and stupid" (Nigel Tufnel)
- Zort! (Pinky)
As long as "most votes wins" is the rule, voting for a third party candidate can be worse than a waste---it can contribute to the worse of the two realistic contenders being elected. Instead of working to be elected, shouldn't you be working to change our voting system to something like preferential voting, which would make it reasonable to vote for you?
To what extent has defensive voting affected ballots cast for Libertarian candidates?
For example, in the upcoming presidential election people who would like to vote for you may cast votes for John Kerry since he probably has the best chance at defeating George Bush Jr.
If Michael Badnarik were to be elected as president of the United States of America, what would be the most likely offensive that he would encounter from the political back rooms of the Big Two? Would it be personal blackmail? Would it be a sex scandal? Would it be a collaborative set up along the lines of sinking Wall Street and then blaming it on the President?
What is the Libertarian contingency plan for elected officials who receive the short end of the scapegoat stick? Have Libertarians been targeted by such schemes in the past if and when they held positions of any significant political power? How corrupt is the game in Washington DC?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
This covers my question (and more) and is worded better to boot.... mod up!
Why does it feel like the only way I have heard about you is online? I know it is important to "embrace the new", but seriously I haven't really heard anything except what I read online.
Do most people read their news online now? I doubt it, there are few sites I trust enough to "believe what I see online". And those sites are mostly the same news corporations that are on TV and in the papers, so I don't generally visit their links anyway.
Was elected Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University, and became a BMOC ('big man on campus') known for getting things done, while always maintaining the high principles instilled by his parents.
No offense, but that's not something I'd put as the first paragraph of my political resume for my PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES campaign.
Then again, it's his right to run.
became an independent computer consultant in 2001
heh.
Became interested in the U.S. Constitution in 1983 and began a life-long journey in self-study of this founding document of the country he is so proud to call his home.
This is respectable but hardly enough to qualify him for ruler of the free world. Though, he does get points for apparently being familiar with the meaning of the Constitution, unlike Bush, Ashcroft, Kerry, et al.
I don't really pay much attention to the progress of the Libertarian party, but if this is the best they can come up with...things are looking pretty sorry for them.
Michael Badnarik = I'd hire a blackman
Equal oppourtunity, he has my vote!
Michael Badnarik = A chairman bilked
bilked: To defraud, cheat, or swindle: made millions bilking wealthy clients on art sales.
Michael Badnarik = A Chi Mandrake Lib
So he uses mandrake huh? With balanced libraries!
Michael Badnarik = A animal bred hick
Out with the old, in with the new!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Several (most?) of the American Revolutionaries believed in the moral tradition of Western Europe, including Christianity, chastity, honesty, etc. A representative quote is from John Adams, who said:
What are your views on this issue? Are your views consistent with the predominant views of the Founders? Please explain.
It is not difficult to argue that the importance of these values and morals are being diminished in our current society. Do you think there is a direct relationship between this change in our moral climate and the changes in civil liberties that have heppened in the last hundred or so years? Or do you think that these changes are not directly related to one another?
I think we can all agree that, being a minor party, the Libertarians run little risk of getting any of the electoral vote. If that's the case, why do you run? I'm honestly curious, is it to educate voters, try to expand the two party system? Is it even to simply voice your views? Or is this merely the first step in total world domination?
Nader seems to have gotten away from doing what would be best for the country, and made his Independent Party bid an ego thing.
I agree that our current system of governance sucks, but the system was built so that things changed slowly, so that one person, pressident, or session of congress couldn't radically change America. Do you propose making incremental changes from the inside, or are you hoping for dissatisfaction with the current system to foster whole scale change in American politics?
I have been following you since your improbable run at the convention, but this question is one that is on the lips of many people who started with interest but faded from the LP:
The usual LP line is interpreted as: Don't touch my money or my weed, which turns off a lot of moderate voters. Combine that with your semantics stands on ZIP codes people equate the LP with the Loony Party. People see the "Fringe" ideas first and completely loose interest.
How do you hope to fight the usual LP labels?
Because you are such an underdog why should the American public vote for you? It seems to me like it would be throwing a vote away. I would never want Bush back in office and I do not care much for Kerry but if John Kerry has the best chance of taking Bush out why would I vote for you?
If the blog eschewed sexuality and focused on the real issues, like WTF these wildly borked entitlement programs (Socialist Security, et al.) that are brining Old Europe to the U.S., he might have been worth notice.
Do you think that non-compete clauses in contracts should be acceptiable as long as both parties voluntarily agree to them?
If not, what other agreements are people not allowed to engage in?
If so, how do you stop people from hiding them in long, seemingly unrelated contracts in order to create a new class of indentured servants. Is a world where every single agreement you would ever make would have to go through a lawyer to make sure that there isn't some poison pill buried in there really a better and freer place than the one we live in now?
Who are your three biggest finicial contributers?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
How much colloidal silver does a Libertarian Senate candidate have to drink before he turns smurf blue?
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
I fully support the Libertarian platform and ideals and I have every intention of voting for you in November. My only beef with the libertarian approach is timing. You've stated that in your first couple months of holding office you'll eliminate the federal reserve, kick the U.N. out of the country, and bring as many of our troops home as possible, among other radical (but good) changes. My question is this: how do you plan to handle the societal impact of these changes? Eliminating the federal reserve is not something I'd expect to go over lightly in the financial markets, for example. Much of the Libertarian platform is a severe departure from the current state of the nation -- I feel that society would need time to adapt to these changes.
"Badnarik is a computer programmer and technical trainer from Austin, Tex. He declined to say if he could program an electronic voting system that would deliver a Libertarian victory."
"I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said 'Diebold (a system vendor): Making machines that vote so you don't have to,'" said Badnarik.
Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
I mean come on! Have a sense of humour! and it is a valid anagram!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
As the offical Libertarian party cadidate for president, where do you stand on the issue of intellectual property? Should it be considered the same as traditional property, or should IP be not subjected to the same protections that physical property is? And do you feel that your personal views on the subject reflect the views of the majority of the party itself, or is this an issue that has the potential to polarize your party much the same way that abortion does for the Democrats and Republicans?
Why are you for unlimited immigration with no caps and no requirments?
This may seem like a crazy question, but I know people that call themselves Libertarians who would argue that you should.
If you agree with them - aren't you putting your ideology before the common sense realisation that people aren't always perfectly rational?
Actually the libertarian party is alot like what the republicans used to be like, so I wouldn't call them extreme, they would be more moderate then both parties, if anything. I mean what's so extreme in believing people should be allowed to do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm other people? Isn't that true freedom, or don't you believe in freedom?
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
Mr. Badnarik, I see that the Environment didn't make your web site's issues list. If elected, what would you do to help preserve the planet?
I see from your bio that you have no political experience, have never served government in any capacity, and almost no management or leadership experience. What makes you think you can be leader of the free world?
This is a serious question. Any yahoo or nutcase can run for president(see Nader and Perot). Why should anybody take you seriously?
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
In many ways, my beliefs overlap the Libertarian Party platform. I am a big supporter of civil liberties and I feel those rights are being threatened.
Having just said that, I have never considered joining the Libertarian Party. My perception of Libertarians are that they are on odd mix of:
1) Urban people whose primary initiative is repealing drug laws.
2) Urban people whose primary initiative is fighting gun control laws.
3) Rural people whose primary intiative is changing property laws and taxes.
How do you respond to this perception? Do you feel there are seperate factions inside the party with different goals? How do you plan to get people like me into your party?
The good news for you guys is that if Kerry loses this election, I think a lot of self-identified Democrats (which I am not) are going to give up on the party. Come on. If a huge party like that can't find one guy who can beat an idiot like Bush, they don't deserve to be a major party.
-B
"Right now, we've got a nice clean split. One candidate receives very nearly half of the vote, and this means a good portion of the country is represented."
a nyway.com/
More like, right now half the country is voting for a candidate that they don't truly admire just to keep the other scumbag out of office.
e.g.
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhim
When did you stop cheating on your wife?
in such a way that third party candidates hurt their own causes by running (by taking away votes from the candidates who are most similar to them in the eyes of voters), why do you think your running is worth the risk of helping the worst candidate to win?
Are you interested in election reform to eliminate the spoiler effect (through such things as condorcet election methods), or would you prefer pretend the problem is not there, and not worry what damage is caused by your running for office?
Why do the Libertarians feel the only function of government is to protect property?
First, do you believe in this sort of "purity", and if not, how can the Libertarian Party distance themselves from these people in order show yourselves as more practical? Right now, I think Libertarians are seen as ivory tower-ites who worship at altars of theory, while ignoring real world practicality.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
A/S/L?!
You don't. In the LP's view of the world those that have the money and power get to make all the rules. They forget that humans are basicly corrupt and, as a whole, don't care about anything other than power.
The LP's ideas, much like communism, fall apart when put into practice because humans don't think that way.
What could the Libertarian Party do to become as strong a politcal force in the U.S. as the GOP or Liberal/Democrats and do you think fielding a lame duck presidential candidate is productive to this end?
...who managed to muster the will to convince a young collection of states to adopt the craziest political document ever conceived. The constitution may have its flaws (as did the people who conceived it) but it provides a framework for correction that we consistently ignore to our peril. The constitution limits the power of the federal government. When we ignore the constitution for our convenience, the electorate says to the feds that we will accept unlimited government. And we are getting that in spades. Both liberals and conservatives are ensuring that there is no aspect of our lives that will not be regulated by the government. EVERYTHING is becoming political and this is a horrible thing for the future of America. Limited or unlimited government are our 2 choices. I'm choosing limited government.
What would you do about the spread of nuclear weapons and other WMDs? Iran is now working on the bomb while Europe wrings its hands. North Korea has the bomb. What is the Libertarian position? Would you ever support attacking Iran to prevent them from going nuclear?
What are your views on foreign trade?
How would you handle the current Iraq situation?
How would you work to keep the U.S. safe from terrorist?
What are your views on the current situation with North Korea?
My understanding is that you hold some pretty extreme views towards just about anything that the National Goverment does. Things like not paying Federal Income taxes for at least a decade, not having a texas drivers liscense because they fingerprint you, and even having issues with national zip codes.
On top of this, the majority of your party was unaware of these views when you were nominated. And I also see nothing of these extreme views on your website. How can you claim to be a good representative of your country/party when the full depths of your beliefs are not known to the public?
Do you have a position on this issue? Does the "validity of the public debt" need to be questioned?
...for those interested in come counter-arguments against Libertarians may be found here.
It should be well known by now that the only way to succeed in national elections is to spend time building up a presence in the local and state governments. With no state income tax and less restrictive gun laws, Texas seems like a breeding ground for libertarians (yes, I know you're currently an Austinite, like me, and I see from your web site that your ran for the Texas House of Representatives twice). The thing is, I don't ever see any promotion for libertarian candidates. I don't see atricles about them in the Austin Chronicle, or on news8austin.com, or on the news8 channel, or even signs planted in the grass on the side of the road. So my question is, what are you doing to help the libertarian party better promote itself at the local/state level to show people what the party can do when in office so they might be more likely to vote for libertarian candidates running for national office?
The Libertarian vote peaked with along with the hippies in the 1970s. Isn't it time to join either the Democrats to press for legalizing all social behavior or the Republicans to press for legalizing all economic behavior?
Your campaign lacks the push to garner even one state, it's a foregone conclusion that every state will go either Democrat or Republican to the layperson. Is there anything you're doing to try to change that?
stuff |
I have scowered lp.org for the answer to this, but could not as it is not on the platform.
Libertarians aim to preserve personal liberty above all else. This would indicate that IP is not belived in, yet I think the party realized the nessesity for "securing for limited times [exclusive rights]" whether it be art or invention.
How would the LP shape IP in order to "advance the process of the arts and sciences", while balancing peronal liberties?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I see that you are opposed to the war in Iraq, and that you are big into seriously reducing the size of the government and taxes. However, the trend for the past 60 years or so has been to spend government money into deficit status on defense and wars, and then scramble ways to pay for that spending. My question is simple. What new idiology are you going to introduce as a motivation to spend the taxpayers' money and create/maintain jobs instead of defense and wars and why will people favor this change?
I know that libertarians are strong defenders of property rights including "intellectual property". What, if any, limitation should be on the duration of copyrights? Are they too long, too short, or just right? How would you like to see the length of copyrights defined?
And as a second question, what role should the government play in enforcing copyrights? Should it be imposing laws that limit technology that might be used to infringe upon copyrights? Should it be actively pursuing people who violate copyrights through the criminal justice system? Or should that be redressed through civil courts between the copyright holders and infringer?
Having watched your constitution class and having kept up with your blog, I'm aware of where you stand on most issues. However, I don't believe you've taken a stand on copyrights and how you see them effecting technology and society. Do you view copyrights as an inherent right given to the person who created the work, or do you see it as a privilege given to those people by the government as a proxy for the people? Many people would say copyright has turned into a weapon for large corporations, established insitutions and people. The constitution grants a limited time protection for copyrights as you know, however the current terms being much greater than the author's life are hardly limited in the scope of insuring future creations by the author.
My question is, then, do you view the current copyright situation as constitutional and correct? If not, then what do you propose to change to weight the situation back towards the common person?
That's scary.
Why should I vote for you when there are other candidates who, whatever their other flaws, don't seem to think that annoying people in exchange for money is just fine?
(Watchers: see the archives of Liberty magazine.)
Many people criticize cross party candidates by saying that they are creating espionage for one of the running mates.
Do you feel that you are running in this election in order to take votes away from one candidate or another so that the drop in votes will benefit a specific candidate?
Anthony
gShares.net
-------
artlu.net
Let me preface this question by saying I plan to vote for you at this point.
Realistically, though, you must know that your odds of defeated one of the two major parties are (sadly) quite low. Given that, what other goals do you hope to accomplish with this campaign? What positive influence do you hope to effect upon the country by doing what you are doing?
What we really need is a ten day waiting period and a background check before you can buy a congressman.
Michael,
I notice that when I quiz people on their beliefs on many issues, a large portion of them have views that are in line with the Libertarian Party. It's my belief that many people are Libertarians and don't know it.
Has the Libertarian Party considered spending more money on mainstream advertising to inform people what the party beliefs are? It seems that especially in the geek culture, Libertarian views are very prevalent. Have you thought about a way to target this group?
It would be in the Libertarian Party's best interest to target geeks. Here's why. When we don't like something, we have a great knack to make it seem evil, like say, Microsoft and SCO. This attitude bleeds over to our friends, family, and mainstream media. If we love something, like say, Linux and Google, The opposite effect happens. People seem to trust us when we are for, or against something.
With us geeks, the Libertarian Party has the opportunity to change public perception on how the public views Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. We're VERY good at making something seem good or evil.
Any thoughts on this?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
Given that the Libertarian party has a socially and politically disparate ideaology from the existing and potentially new Democrat or Republican lawmakers in Congress, how do you intend to cooperate with other, non-Libertarian lawmakers, as any successful presidency would ideally help to forge the differences between the parties, and a third party candidate with leanings both ways on different issues would definitely have a distinct edge in moderation.
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property.
Wrong. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only exist for the purpose of limiting the power of the Federal (and State, theoretically) governments. It makes no other guarantees about the behavior of your fellow citizens and was never meant to.
As a side effect of this, a person is able to throw you off of his property for any reason, including saying things he doesn't like. What are you saying? You shouldn't be able to throw a burglar out of your house if he starts quoting "Mein Kampf", because that would be a violation of his free speech rights? What about the rights of the property owner?
If you don't like the concept of private property, go ahead and move to Vietnam or North Korea or something, there you can starve equally.
Given your focus on individual responsability, what - if anything - do you propose should be done with regard to people incapable of supporting themselves (due to physical or mental incapacity)? In your view, does the state hold any responsability towards them?
As it turns out, this nation has a long history of third party influence. No, they never win the presidency (unless you count Lincoln), but they do influence politics, usually on one key issue. Prohibition, food inspection, and direct election of senators were all part of 3rd party movements. The pattern is that when a 3rd party garners enough votes, one or both of the other 2 parties steal their thunder, adopting some of their key issues. For instance, a vote for Nader in 2000 would most likely be interpreted as a vote for campaign finance reform. I'm not really sure what a vote for Nader now could be interepreted as (maybe anti-war?). A vote for the Badnarik would most likely be interpreted as a vote against the patriot act and the FCC's new censorship rules.
How do you feel about what the Democrats are doing to Ralph Nader, preventing free choice by blocking him from the ballot because of some insane notion that someone doesn't have the right to run for President if they're not a Democrat or a Republican? Have you had any troubles yourself in this regard?
They will work for those that win, ensuring an low cost labor source for the powerful and rich.
Just look at history.
If Libertarians believe in efficient government that allows the rights of people to be expressed -- through Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- why is it that they don't support a right to health care in the form of a single payer system that is demonstrably cheaper and more effective than the current or a deregulated system?
Cheers,
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
In your own words, what does the constition and its bill of rights mean?
Abbreviated answers are acceptable, but please no 'political-speak'..
After that, what do you have planned to protect what you just have described, and how is that different then the other 2 main candidates plans?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's clear it's always going to be a two horse race.
Please take a look at history. This is not the case. The Republicans and Democrats are not the originals, they are just the ones we currently have. They certainly have done a lot to pass new legislation to protect their own positions.
I'm not interested in the motivation, I completely understand the motivation. I'd like to know what you think needs to be done to create credibility within the public mind for a third party. It seems that the presidency is a big thing to shoot for, and you could better spend your money winning seats in state legislatures, and move up towards the presidency. Why not start with attainable positions, and build?
Hey Taco--
Can we get Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party as the next candidate? He is on the ballot in most states.
I have long considered the inertia that incumbent representatives accumulate to be a serious dtriment to our political process. I think it does nothing but encourage so-called pork barrel spending catering to special interest lobbying groups. What is your stance on term limits for Congress, and why? If you support them, what would you do to try and get the implemented?
What have I got in my pocket?
-Lod
Seriously, why is Libertarianism the prevailing political pseudo-philosophy of internet culture? Are we all that simple-minded? The Internet was a product of academia, heavily subsidized by public funds. The e-gold rush that followed ruined what uniqueness the net once had. And you want corporations in charge of our water supply and our roads? You've got to be kidding me.
Like the Ponzi scheme, the current system of social security cannot sustain itself unless tax brackets continue to rise or retirement age is increased. Privatization of social security makes sense, but the transition period between the current system and privatization will encounter several problems like current recipients will not be able to receive funds under privatization. What kind of a transition would be required for this country to smoothly convert to a privatized social security policy?
Why does the LP ignore human nature? IOW, what is to stop people from gaining enough power to keep the rest of the population at a near slave level of existance?
Before you say I am wrong about human nature please explain the past 3000 years of human history.
In a strictly libertarian society, the costs of protection of rights fall on the owners of those rights -- not on the general public. How does this differ from a net asset tax and how would you move from taxing productivity to charging fees to cover the cost of the protection of rights?
Seastead this.
Where do you see the the Free State Project in New Hampshire leading, both for your party and for the nation in general?
I am officially gone from
Or more precisely, a complete lack of water.
I cannot predict the future. But, I do know what happened in the past, so my question is this: How would you (and the libertarian party) have handled the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Nazi threat?
My question for this fart-knocker would be, do chinese people have straight pubic hair?
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property.
Wrong. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only exist for the purpose of limiting the power of the Federal (and State, theoretically) governments. It makes no other guarantees about the behavior of your fellow citizens and was never meant to.
How is that wrong. I said that issues involving free speech (and I should have said assembly) only affect public property. You're saying that it doesn't affect private property. We agree there.
As a side effect of this, a person is able to throw you off of his property for any reason, including saying things he doesn't like. What are you saying? You shouldn't be able to throw a burglar out of your house if he starts quoting "Mein Kampf", because that would be a violation of his free speech rights? What about the rights of the property owner?
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that people should be able to go into my house and yell at me all night. I agree that private property should be, well, private. Rather I'm saying that if all public property is privatized, do civil rights have any meaning at all?
How much do the taxpayers pay to get this regulatory nirvana? What has the SEC done to get back money for the small investor? Was Martha a sacrificial lamb for public consumption while real evil doers remain unpunished? Will the SEC get shareholder/pension holders money back? Does the SEC merely act to protect and consolidate power structures BEYOND what the free market would generate? When we ask the government to do something good, do we get what we pay for, or more taxpayer-funded status quo?
And don't get me started on the Enron-style accounting the feds use to hide the real deficit (social security lock box) or the pyramid scheme called social security that would be illegal if anyone but the feds were running it.
Why did someone mod this as flamebait without even doing a bit of reasearch/reading.
Both Bush and Kerry are sworn in as a member of a secret society called Skull and Bones which has it's own agenda. This relates to so many things from fiscal deficit to defense to patriot act... hopefully someone with mod points can do more research on this before modding this post
If he's being sued to be kept off the ballots like the Democrats are doing with Ralph Nader.
I have been struck by an analogous thread in the Libertarian Party which seems to favor private ownership over public ownership when it comes to things like Utilities, Property, etc. But the anaolgy holds that much of what we consider to be eligible for private ownership is "built on top of" a solid foundation of public ownership, and derives a good deal of it's value from it. The often cited example of this is private land which is worthless without the public roads lending access to it.
Can the Libertarian Party offer a platform of balance between the good of private property ownership and the necessity of public property ownership (government) or does the Libertarian Party offer another solution to replace the functions which we have traditionally relied on a government function to handle?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I am aware of what the party is doing at the local level, and the slow progress being made.
What can the Libertarian Party, or any third party do to make their candidates more relevant at the national level? Unless/until the national polls put a third-party candidate beyond potential "spoiler" numbers, as happened with Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992, the national media provide scant coverage. I think this exposure is critical to achieving relevancy, let alone victory.
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
You do not mention abortion on your page of issues. Are you a Libertarian for Life? Why or why not?
Let me preface my question by saying I have voted for mainly Libertarian candidates for four years, and take a largely Libertarian political mindset when voting on ballot issues.
Mr. Badnarik, do you personally feel that the Libertarian Party's public image is tarnished by the perception that they cater to the interests of Drug Legalization and unregulated Gun Ownership?
I'm not looking for the party line, as I can read lp.org on my own. The idealogues who wrote the platform believe that personal responsibility trumps government oversight, which in my heart I believe is the right way for society to go.
I am someone who believes that guns are useful tools, but live in a household with unstable emotional variables so do not need to own one. I also have never taken recreational substances and don't feel that I'm missing out by avoiding them. I agree that our current state of government overregulates both of these issues (Guns and Drugs) to irrational extremes, to the detriment of the civil rights of responsible adults nationwide. On the flip side, the reality is that a large part of our population would be completely unable to function if left to their own sense of responsibility to make decisions regarding recreational drugs and weapons.
The point I'm getting at is that, as an intellectual and rational human being, I have a hard time "selling" the Libertarian Party as a viable alternative to our two party system. The LP clearly has a perception problem when like-minded civil libterians refer to the LP as "a bunch of gun and drug nuts." The crux of this gets lost when the candidates turn idealogues and say "Smaller Government! No Income Tax! Legalize Drugs! Hold sacred the Second Amendment!" All of these things are good, but this mindset excludes discussion on a lot of pragmatic issues that need addressed before American Society is ready to accept them as truth.
Thank you for your time.
I know Libertarians are generally against the draft (at least I am :) but how would you encourage adequate recruiting for the military and other necessary government functions? Would you ever consider a Heinleinesque "Citizenship through service" (at least for those who wish to immigrate here) or do you have another idea?
I'm a pretty big news buff, and I've never heard the Libertarian candidates name until now.
So I guess a more PC question than the one posed above would be "Please introduce yourself to the readers, and explain why it is that your party is being completely ignored in the mainstream press."
I'm guessing that the real answer will be something to the effect of "A 3rd party candidate doesn't stand a chance, so why waste the camera time", which is the mantra that the two main political parties chant over and over, but seriously... In the land of the free where anyone can supposedly become president, why is it that only the two most despised parties (albeit with the most members) constantly get all the press attention.
How can someone be given a fair chance if the partisan news coverage never covers them?
Being a libertarian, you favor the absolute minimum level of government regulation of the economy. In the last few decades, intellectual property law has served to not only erode our fair use rights with intellectual property, but also to increase monopoly positions in industries like software development (with software patents and click-through and shrink-wrap licenses) and music and movies (Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, DMCA, and now possibly PIRATE and INDUCE). The Constitution lays out the framework for Congress to provide intellectual property rights, so I'd have to assume you support their existence. But do you think their implementation is fostering a free market where competition thrives to benefit consumers? As president, what direction would you want to see the intellectual property law landscape take?
Now there's a fair chance this is gonna get marked as flamebate, so be it, however:
The libertarians I've known have uniformly been extraordinarily poor 'amabssadors' for thier professed political views. By which I mean pedantic, nominally idealistic but in reality so narrow-focused on their own solutions to the world's ills that they seem to have no conception that no they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of influencing any real world matters.
Hell even the Greens had the sense to run *Nader* who's at least well enough grounded in political reality to accomplish something. (Even if it was to effectively to sink their own political relevance in the US due to the anger of the rest of us who saw that campaign as a primary reason that we have the unimaginably incompetent GWB 'running' the country).
But anyhow you-all want interview questions, here goes:
How is it that libertarians (yes I'm generalizing based on the ones I know) able to take positions that are so damned far from the mainstream and try to go out and advocate them *and* (seemingly) thinking they're actually accomplishing something with all this?
And to clarify, I'm *no fan* myself of mainstream. My personal views are certainly in many cases a hell of a lot more 'radical' than any libertarian I've met. However I don't take every one of those opinions and try to convince everyone I know that I'm right and they're wrong. I.e. I strive when I go out and actually accomplish stuff to work toward my goals with some sense that others may have goals that differ from mine, and put my ideas out with that reality in mind.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
With the republicans making this into a wedge issue, where do you stand on gay marriage? Would you support an amendment to the Constitution banning it?
Congratulations, Mr. President. That was a great inaugural address. And what a party last night! Here's your seat behind the oval office desk.
Before you is a legal pad emblazoned with the Presidential Seal on the top, a few pens, a pitcher and glass with cool water off to one side, within easy reach, a phone with which you can use to contact anyone in the world to initiate policy change. Take a deep breath, you've earned it. Now...
What's your first move? Which program do you think is causing the most harm, wasting the most money, or restricting the most freedoms, and what steps would you take to accomplish the goal of shutting it down?
I want to know what Badnarik's views are on frivolous pattents, monopolies, DMCA, and fair use.
I'm saying that if all public property is privatized, do civil rights have any meaning at all?
Sure, they mean exactly what they've always meant, that the government recognizes the rights outlined in the BOR as natural and inalienable, and will not interfere. Supposedly. For example, you can publish a newspaper saying whatever you like (as long as it is not obscene, etc.), but no shopowner is required to carry that newspaper. That's how it has always been.
As far as public property disappearing, I don't have the impression that much free speech of consequence is dependent on public property. Please give an example.
In most of your appearances and in your debate with Dave Cobb, you emphasized that one of your most immediate actions would be to end the Federal Reserve and dramatically restructure the currency system. Given that the market can take considerable swings if Alan Greenspan so much as sneezes, have you considered the market reaction in response to a sudden standard shift? Regardless of your personal policies, if the public confidence in a metal standard isn't there, how would you prevent a panic? Would it be possible to take a more gradualist approach to Libertarian policies, in order to do things like pay down the public debt first?
What is your position on the War in Iraq and how does it differ from the positions of your opponents?
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...looking for a clear position...
What is "equal economic footing with everyone else in the country"?
Is it flat ass broke? That's not equal with what's in my wallet, but it is equal with Smelly Joe on the corner. You mean the average income/bank account balance?
How about equal footing means we live in a country where your talents will propel you forward and your weaknesses (e.g., stupidity) will hold you back? Yeah, let's try something like that, please.
I hate mindless regulation SEC style. I also hate it that accounts and auditors have an inherent conflict of interest as long as they are hired and paid by the companies they audit. What a preposterous system!
I think that stock market investors should be able to buy anti-fraud insurance for their shares. To have company stock eligible for such insurance, the company would have to satisfy auditors hired by the insurance company. Insured stocks would presumably sell at a premium price compared to uninsured stocks. If the premium margin was enough, both investors and company managements would be motivated to participate in the fraud insurance program.
Is this idea in keeping with Libertarian principles? If yes, how would a Libertarian administration go about bringing it to be?
The "bipartisan" (meaning "third parties need not apply") Commission on Presidential Debates says a candidate must be pulling 15% support in national polls in order to appear in the debates. Yet apart from media darling Ralph Nader, third party candidates are almost never mentioned by name in national polls. And the pollsters say they don't mention the third-party candidates because they don't pull enough support in the polls. Catch-22! Is there anything that the average citizen can do to help break this cycle and get you (and other Thirdsters) into the debates?
My experience with 3rd party politics is often that they are great on rhetoric, but short on plans for implementing change. If 3rd parties are to be anything more than polite debate societies, they must come up with real plans for implementing their goals. How do you...
These are just a few. Please forgive and correct me if these points are not part of the Libertarian agenda. From my reading, they seem to be goals that you would strive toward. They might all sound good in theory, but the process of actually getting there is going to be rocky. How are you going to guide the nation through it?
Constitutionally Correct
Why do Libertarians support the relegalization of slavery?
Given that you claim in your biography that you:
"Became interested in the U.S. Constitution in 1983 and began a life-long journey in self-study of this founding document of the country he is so proud to call his home."
how do you reconcile your belief that the federal income tax has no basis in law with the fact that the 16th amendment clearly states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."?
Similarly, you have outlined a plan for confining prisoners to their beds for the first month of their incarcaration, in order to atrophy their muscles, thereby reducing their ability to make trouble. How do you reconcile this proposal with the 8th amenment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"?
Given that these two proposals of yours (among others) seem to stand at odds with the constitution itself, how do you expect the average informed voter to come to any conclusion other than that you have no more respect (and possibly less) for the constitution of this country than the current administration does? Are you in fact another "I'm for the parts of the constitution that I agree with" politician, or do you believe in the authority of the entirity of that document? And if you do agree with it's authority, will you now either renounce these ideas or provide a detailed argument for their compatibility with the constitution as it stands?
http://www.badnarik.org/Why/>
Under Small Business, if we didnt have a minimum wage, we would really have people compeating for pennies. They are already entry level jobs, that why its a Minimum wage!
Thats one thing I wouldn't vote for, making the low income workers even more poor. If companies could get slaves or identured servants, they would. Workers have some rights.
But the regulations and small B&O taxes should be removed, that I do agree with.
Eliminate minimum wage laws creating viable entry level jobs
Eliminate barriers to start-up businesses
Understands that small businesses- and the jobs they create are the backbone of our economy
Eliminate small business destroying regulations
Eliminate business requirement to collect federal withholding taxes from employees
End federally mandated minority set asides
End federal insurance requirement
The other thing, is you cant close down all the government watchdog agencies. You cant trust business's to police themselves, and you cant trust all people, simple regulations keep people honest. (I SAID SIMPLE, before the flood of reply posts....)
The smaller federal government is important, but not at the stake of monopolies, stock scandels, polution, 401 ripoffs. I dont trust businesses as much as LP'ers.
Other than that, good stances on everything else. LP seems to fit my views, too bad I'm worried about Bush getting re-elected, and I dont want to vote for Kerry. Blah!
Badnarik:
As a Libertarian candidate, I frequently face the "wasted vote" syndrome. People tell me that I'm a good candidate. They believe in what I stand for, but they can't bring themselves to vote for me because they don't want to waste their vote. If you were in prison, and you had a 50% chance of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair, and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome? Your survival depends on voting for escape even if that's only a 5% chance. If you continue to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are committing political suicide. The only chance we have of saving our constitutional republic is to vote Libertarian, even if that's only a 5% probability of getting into office. We have to demonstrate that we are not satisfied with the status quo. Voting for the lesser of two evils and your candidate wins and you still get evil.
The Libertarian Party is the party of principle. We have candidates in every state, in every county, that are principled, passionate, and articulate. Please vote Libertarian and help us restore a free country.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The Libertarian Party platform advocates separation of education and state. How would you go about reforming the nation's educational system without a massive disruption to a student's schoolwork?
Mr. Badnarik, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
In your health care position paper, you say you can lower prescription drug costs by eliminating wasteful restraints on the market. You're probably right, and I think the biggest restraint is the artificial monopoly granted through patents.
Do you think that property rights naturally extend to a person's published ideas and uterrances, or is the copyright clause of the US constitution an unwarranted restraint of the market?
No more cults.
A pretty good writeup of the "Ohio wasn't a state, therefore the President wasn't a valid President, therefore income tax isn't legal" baloney is here. Summary: those people are screwballs.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
How would you propose to curb or eliminate "deficit spending" which in my view seems to breed a society that has no fiscal responsibility?
As you are probably aware, software patents are a very important issue to the Free Software/Open Source Community. Software patents pose a serious threat. They can impede software development and rob our community of valuable code that would otherwise be availble for anyone to use. And although my political views have a strong tendency towards Libertarianism, I am largely ignorant of how you and the Libertarian party views software patents. Where you stand on the issue of software patents?
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Are you sick of questions about a three party system?
If yes, then in what way (e.g. fiscal, social, political, econominc, etc)? If not, how would you classify him? Why do you think conservatives are voting for him? Oops, that was three, but the first one isn't that interesting.
-1 Flamebait
I'm not rich and not having wasted taxes sucked out of my income is only one small part of being a Libertarian. It's about PERSONAL FREEDOM. Ideals this country was founded upon.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Let me first say that I'm independent and have no problems voting for a 3rd party candidate, if for nothing else to show that a change needs to be made in the political system. Looking on your site, I see you recommend to cut on federal spending and regulation to help secure a sound economy. By doing so, won't there be a risk of mal-business practices, such as those seen in the early 1900's when work conditions and wages were poor? And while i do agree federal spending needs to be cut, isn't some of it good? Finally, as quoted from your site "One study estimated that the death toll from regulations that do more harm than good cost 60,000 American lives each year!" What proof do you have to justify claims like these and where can i look up those studies? Doesn't it sound a little far fetched that many people die from the very regulations use to protect and that so many new jobs woul be created from cutting out regulation.
Do you worry that your campaign will help Kerry to win by taking votes away from Bush?
What is the Libertarian position on proportional representation (http://fairvote.org/pr) and instant runoff voting (http://fairvote.org/irv)?
Do you support approval voting or some other non-plurality voting system as a way to allow voters to support less popular candidates without "throwing their vote away"?
-jim
Would you approve of, and what would you think would be the results of, the following election reforms:
1. Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Lastly a question: is the democratic system as instituted in the United States hopelessly mired in a two-party stranglehold, leaving corporate interest in defacto charge of the discussion? Is legal election reform necessary, or even possible?
MORTAR COMBAT!
Background:
I've been a registered Libertarian my entire life, and I have so far voted for the Libertarian candidate (Harry Browne) in every presidential election since I turned 18. I'm a strong believer in what the libertarian party stands for, and I'd like to see them become the majority party someday.
I recently have been VERY impressed with Dennis Kucinich, in fact he is the first democrat OR republican I have ever had any real respect for. I even re-registered as a democrat for just long enough to support him in the democratic primary, then registered back to libertarian. But the democrats have tacitly ignored him and everything he stands for - his attempt has essentially proven that attempts at true progress 'within the system' as a member of a majority party are, for now at least, not going to do anything.
------------
I've been thinking about voting for Nader, because he is the one out there making the biggest fuss about ending the war RIGHT NOW, ASA-MF-P, and that is the most important issue and the most correct answer I'm hearing out there. This is only an option for me because I live in CA, and it's a foregone conclusion that no matter what I do, Kerry will get CA's 55 electoral votes.
I hate bush enormously. I want to see him lose at any cost. He should be stopped by any means necessary. I would vote for Kerry if I thought it would make a difference. But aside from protesting the Vietnam war shortly after leaving it, I don't have much to respect him for. It's just an anti-bush vote. I'm sure the situation is the same for millions of others.
On to my question.
We all know that, in 2004 at least, the libertarian party is not going to _WIN_ the presidential election. What you are doing now is ideally greasing the wheel for next time. It's too contentious a race to piss off the democrats like Nader is doing and loudly, vocally denounce Kerry as a less ideal solution than yourself. I suggest you publicly acknowledge what everyone -- especially the more independent voters -- already knows. That while Kerry may not be ideal candidate for us, he is a hell of a lot better than the lunatic cowpoke marionette doll we have running the place right now. I am asking you, as someone who has spent his entire adult life advocating and supporting the Libertarian party (and who will continue to) -- please pledge that in the case that the Libertarian party does not win the presidency outright, you will direct any and all Electors you may get in the Electoral College to give their votes to Kerry. This way the libs can be shown as having part of the vote, without being 'spoilers'. And on the off chance that you the libs do get enough votes to run the place, you will not have committed to give up the presidency.
I realize things are very different on a scale below the electoral college. I don't have a solution for that. But I do think there need to be more public voices advocating for what Colorado is trying to do on their ballot this election --- split electoral votes according to percentage of state vote received. Please think about doing that.
I consider myself Liberatarian, however I find that the Republican party suits my political needs fiscally. I support lowering taxes, and support less government, and honestly I don't really give a damn about certain social issues, like who can marry who.
Do you find when you vote there are needs when voting for candidates that are more important than others, therefore you should stick to voting within the traditional party lines?
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
One concern about true free trade is that it may encourage the practice of dumping. Where a company will sell good below cost at a different country in order to drive a foreign compentitor out of business.
What is the Libertarian view on this practice?
You support the 2nd Amendment and are a gun owner. What do you own and what are your favorite guns?
This guy is way out there
As a citizen of a country with several different
parties I know that my vote will have a slight
chance not to be lost (coalition of two or more
parties to build a government).
I know the USA as a country with a classic
two-party system. From my knowledge most
politicians in the US need to seek a majority
for their issues/acts. Even in their own party/fraction in the parliment.
In my country every elected politician has to
support his party (In Germany known as
'Fraktionszwang') in major parliment decisions.
Why didn't you choose to join the Democrats
or Republicans when you can more or less define
your views/standpoints on your own without having
to worry about a large pre-defined party programme
with their views on issues? Just to have a larger
chance to win?
This year we witnessed the first flight by a private spaceship to pass the boundary into space. In your opinion, is there any legitimate purpose for a publicly funded civilian space program? Do you believe that public funding of NASA hurts the private space industry?
Charity only does so much because our means to donate is severely hampered by government -- both financially and psychologically. Did you know that the average US citizen is forced to pay nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? It's no surprise that the typical citizen is unwilling to donate, after government assumes both the means and the responsibility.
I don't know about you, but I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to donate if I wasn't so busy making ends meet on what little of my earnings government "allows" me to keep.
I am a Canadian, currently living and working in the US. Before moving here, I was more-or-less ignorant of the way the US political system worked, other than that you had two main parties and had this electoral college-thingy. I understand things a little better now, after asking my American collegues a lot of stupid questions.
Canada's political system, as you might know, is a multi-party system similar to Britain's. Although I smirk at the so-called 'fringe' parties as much as the next Canadian (there are twelve officially registered parties in Canada, but only four with Official party status (four or more seats in parliament)), I can't help but think that multiple parties is a good idea...a *very* good idea for a democratic system.
The Democratic Party in the U.S. has often been described as a 'watered-down Republican Party'. After witnessing the campaining for the presidential nominations for the upcoming election and the 2000 election I have to agree that the two main parties in the States are very similar to each other (although a lot of adrenaline and vehemence goes into emphasizing the minor differences). This essentially means that the US voters have very little real choice and their votes for one or the other make very little difference (perhaps this explains the low voter turn-out?). This is a gross over-simplification, I fully admit, but if you agree with the opening statement of this paragraph, you probably agree that there is some merit to this last statement.
A multiple party system, I believe, presents voters with a true choice, allowing a greater expression of the national beliefs and values to be represented in the resulting government. Since no one party generally holds all of the power within the parliament (or equivalent) this usually means that the voice of the minority is at least heard in government.
Many of the posts to Slashdot in reply to this request for questions have been in the form of 'Third party? Why bother?' This reflects the sentiment of a lot of Americans, even those who agree with the platforms of the other candidate parties.
My question is this: what do you think can be done, beyond presenting a candidate for the Presidental elections, to educate the average American about the merits of voting for a third party, given the overriding sentiment of futility in this? Do you think that changes are needed to the electoral system?
Mr. Badnarik: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
5/10/15 years is good for somethings, but when measuring America in presidential terms, I think 4/8/12/16 is a better measure, simply because presidents can make a large impact. (IE: Bush took us to war)
(The 16 is optional because 12 is less long-term than 15)
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
Better yet.
What is your vision of what will happen to poor people once all government aid is stopped. What percentage of them will resort to crime to eat and to feed their families.
What is vision of what will happen to the environment once all environmental regulations are overturned.
evil is as evil does
When you nearly equally dislike the top two candidates in an election, the only way you can really waste your vote is to use it to specify your ever so slight preference of one of them over the other.
Think about it. You'd really like to vote libertarian, but Bush and Kerry are most likely to win, and you like Kerry a little bit better than Bush. If you vote Libertarian, then if Bush wins, things aren't that much worse than they would have been if Kerry had won, and you put your vote to good use by trying to get someone different in office.
Seems that the philosophy of liberty is an agreeable basis of government for most people, but once you start realizing the implications of moving more of the economy over to free market system, based upon individual free will, then people start getting nervous about all the easy money government jobs which might be lost. This is really the underlying problem for libertarianism, getting past the fear that Libertarians just want to throw a lot of people out their jobs or eliminate jobs that are based upon government contracts. Can you spell out how you would go about a reorganization of the executive and how you would make a reasonable transition away from some government programs so as to mitigate the strain on individuals and the economy as a whole?
I don't see how freedom of speech is automatically protected under so-called "public" (government-owned) property. Look what happened at the Republican convention!
will if you become president, you help me get a free iPod?
" Charities only do so much after all."
Charities has been given no chance because those with the money that would otherwise have the means to support charity has been continually robbed by high marginal taxes on income for at least 90 years.
Did you know that the highest tax bracket during and after the WWII was 90%? Did you know that it was not lowered to 28% until Reagan came to power in the 80's?
Did you know that Clinton raised the top tax bracket to 40% in the 90's , thus eroding the basis for high incomes to donate to charity ?
One of the reasons 3rd parties often fail to obtain a significant portion of the vote is that they tend to take on extremist views. Your own party, for example, recommends extreme policies such as turning environmental protection over to corporations, and legalizing drugs.
The problem is that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle on the policital spectrum (or near the origin of your own two-axis spectrum), and both of the major parties cater to those Centrists by doing their best to appear Moderate/Centrist regardless of their actual agenda.
How do you plan to lead your party toward a more Moderate viewpoint, and thus toward political power?
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Badnarik? Rich? Ha! Badnarik's just a teacher who offers a one-day class on the Constitution.
I've been following Badnarik's ascent to the LP's candidate in Reason Magazine, which covers a lot of libertarian issues, and one thing is for sure: this man had almost NO funding whatsoever in his campaign.
In fact, leading up to the LP convention, he drove around in his Kia Sophia campaigning with just one other guy, and they would often run out of money and have to rely on the generosity of random supporters to even have a place to stay. For example, when the LP convention came around, it was held in a Marriott hotel or something like that. Badnarik couldn't even afford a room! Fortunately, an impressed supporter offered Badnarik the chance to use his room as a "base of operations" of sort, which allowed him to talk to more delegates and win the nomination.
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
I would like to know your stance on the current laws governing intellectual property.
Would you support rolling back copyright length to the orignal term?
What is your general stance on copyrights and patents?
In your view, should the government be able to create and enforce such an artificial monopoly?
If you do support IP laws, would you support a geometric licensing fee to force IP into the public domain after a few years?
I.E.:
First five years free
Sixth year = $1000.00
Seventh = $5000.00
8th = $25000.00
9th = $125000.00
Etc. until such time as the patent or copyright is no longer profitable to license and becomes public domain...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
"How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple canidates and not just two? "
... has anyone actually VOTED who asked these ignorant questions?
What are you talking about? You have a choice between Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, Communist
-Ba ba
Most Libertarians I have talked to want to eliminate the income tax. My question is, how would basic services be provided in the United States with no income tax?
Every aspiring and inexperienced politician has thought of that one at some stage. Just look at Arnie down here in Kali-foonya. Despite his promise to solve the state's fiscal problems by 'cutting bureaucracy,' we're still in a mess. The former Conservative leader William Hague thought he could topple Tony Blair in the last British general election with that promise, but the educated electorate knew better than to swallow that one.
What makes you think you'll be any different?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I guess the parent is a little redundant. My apologies.
-jim
I know of a few people that would love to vote for you but are voting for Bush because they see a lack of a foreign policy in the libertarian party. How can you show America that if another 9/11 style attack occurs that we will be able to respond? Also over the years nearly everyone I've talked to that said they were voting for a Libertarian gave the reason "Because they want to legalize weed" but had nothing more to say than that and knew nothing of the other policies. Do you feel that takes credibility away from the party?
yes, they can technically win. but, when you say
you're dead wrong. the 3rd parties are forced into being one issue horses because of the dominance of the 2 parties. we live in a first past the post winner take all country. there's no prize for second place, so why bother. the only way 3rd parties can get ANYONE on board is if they play to single issue voters.
also, almost all of boards of election (they are county level) in the nation are run by just R's and D's. there IS an institutional bias against 3rd parties in the US. that is a fact.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
We have much more than just TWO candidates. Let's actually try and not hate Bush so much.
Thanks guys!
-Ba ba
A recent Wired cover story said "A typical person might be a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, free marketeer. That doesn't line up with either party". It sounds to me that the 'typical person' has libertarian tendancies. What is the Libertarian Party in general, and your campaign specifically, doing to tap the un-represented masses? What has Howard Dean's success, both in popularity and in fundraising, shown the potential internet has in undercutting "politics as usual"?
The Trouble with Blogs
What are your feelings about granting an interview to a site (Slashdot Politics) who promotes every candidate except George W. Bush? Am I correct in assuming that, as a third party candidate, you favor open coverage for all parties?
Would the Swiss model of decentralized government be a good one for Iraq? Why or why not?
Obviously missing is the right to privacy, which in my opinion is right up there with the aforementioned rights. And had our forefathers had the vision to see the present abuse of privacy, the right to privacy might have been included in the original Bill of Rights
Should the people of the United States be offered the opportunity to vote on a new constitutional ammendment that would guarantee the right to privacy. Personal information gathered for any purpose must be held in confidence and may not be used or disseminated without explicit written permission.
This would quickly reduce the amount of Junk Mail (snailmail kind) that fills my homes mailbox because my mortgage company is selling my name and address.
It would also go along way to help stop spammers if everyone of us has a constitutional ammendment to use in a civil claim. Granted, it may not do much for the random spam, but I am really tired of every online business taking my email address and using for their own internal advertising, until I go to their webpage and Opt Out.
What is your opinion of Personal Privacy, and is it time for a New Constitutional Ammendment?
I am all for a smaller government. And I'm all for reducing the numbers of laws or even enforcing the laws equally VS lawmakers such that when laws like the DMCA get passed, the Grandkids of the Senator(s) get fined/locked up with the hopes that lawmakers would engage thier brains WRT the laws.
But many companies and people seek to externalize their costs and engage in things like pollution, deceptive accounting et la.
How do you propose to change things in such that the corrective invisible hand of Adam Smith is a good solid knockout VS the present girly slap that corporate staff now get?
2 examples-Bhopol. The ex-head of the plant that killed and sicked many people is 'retired' in Hoffman Estates in Il. His in-action caused alot of death and suffering...why is he not doing time? How about Gulf Minerals - the Board decided to not repair the air scrubbers, thus polluting the 200 miles downwind of the plant. The 'punishement' - the corporation was dissolved. The board members - they still have all the money and property they had before and none have done jail time.
What do you think should be the standard for US military intervention in foreign lands? Clearly there are cases where a lot of lives will be lost if an external party doesn't intervene. Specifically, I'm thinking of the genocide occurring in Darfur right now. What action do you think the US should take, if any?
I'm not a smorgasbord.
It was ratified by a majority of the States.
You are a Nutcase.
Why don't you libertarians just move back to the jungle. Libertarianism existed in the primeval swamp. The rest of us are not goving back. We like civilization.
i still don't know what the libertarian stance on abortion is. they seem to avoid the issue.
Libertarians are about personal freedom. You can't legislate religion and/or morality because morality is essentially about choice and legislation is about restricting choice (a man who would sin given the chance is no more moral than the man who actually does. The Bill of Rights does not say for example, what we can do, but what our government cannot do). If we choose to be an immoral people and thus destroy our government, a libertarian would say we have that choice.
I personally don't agree with everything you or what I have just said, I'm just arguing from a POV which would accept both libertarian POV as well as your POV.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Why are Libertarian-minded people so fixated on winning the executive branch when really that cannot happen until the party is accepted as mainstream by the public at large? Wouldn't it make more sense to stay focused on the legislature? The legislature, after all, presents hundreds of opportunities every couple of years for Libertarians to win a chance at influencing policy. The legislature controls what bills the president gets to sign. And the legislature controls spending.
I didn't know until today that there was a Libertarian running for senate in my state (Pennsylvania) and only then I found out because I looked hard for her. I've yet to see a single sign outside or a single campaign button or bumper sticker. This, in my opinion, is where the party needs to really focus its limited resources.
It's called Condorcet Voting, and unlike IRV it's supported by mathematicians.
Most members of the public are scared by what is viewed as "extremism" in the Libertarian party. "End the war on drugs" and "Abolish the IRS" are scary changes for many people to make all at once. Why does the party resist pushing a more incremental platform? Why won't the party say things like "In our first term we will legalize marijuana and marijuana only. We will closely study and follow the ramifications of this policy in terms of savings to our military and police forces, crime rates, prison overcrowding, and market factors such as pricing and tax revenues generated. At the end of x number of years we will judge the experiment and debate expanding or restricting other drugs." The party always seems to know where it wants to go, but it is weak in explaining to the people how we will go about getting there.
Are you afraid of negative publicity from old children's shows with your last name?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Is copyright and patent law regulation? Is there intellectual property?
I hear a lot of complaints from friends and relatives about how they dislike the government getting involved with their lives too much. At the same time, they are afraid to let go of their "presumed" security that they falsely believe the government gives them. This prevents them from accepting the Libertarian view that government power should be reduced.
Unfortunately, people have lived for so long with an unconstitutionally invasive government and have been spoon fed lies from fearmongers that they need a massive government.
I believe this is the strongest challenge the Libertarian Party faces. This is especially true since 9/11, since many people assume giving the government more power will protect them.
What are your strategies for convincing people that their lives would be better and safer by reducing the power and scope of the government rather than increasing it?
Also, where do you personally place the blame for the origins of government bloat? Do you think the root cause is an apathetic public unwilling to stand up to the government, or have we (as a whole) merely been tricked by slick politicians?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
"As far as public property disappearing, I don't have the impression that much free speech of consequence is dependent on public property. Please give an example."
Strikes. If you can't picket anywhere near a company because the employeer owns the roads and the sidewalks, you can't complain about working conditions in a way that would inform customers.
How would you differentiate your 3rd party campaign from Nader's ?
What do you hope to accomplish? I won't ask you to comment on siphoning off voters from one of the two main parties, but in all seriousness, can you please describe one way in which yours or any third party Presdential campaign contributes to the best interests of the country, which is what this is supposed to be about?
And please - try to avoid reiterating Nader's tired old "the system is unfair" prattle. I know its unfair, but no 3rd party campaign will change that, even if you win the election.
What I'm looking for is a single, direct, POSITIVE consequence that will be produced by your campaign in the event of your victory, and in the event of your defeat
Thanks.
Party Platform
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here are some videos from C-SPAN that might be useful for coming up with questions for Badnarik. It's always more interesting to question people about things they've actually said!
Third Party Debate
Badnarik's Acceptance Speech
Libertarian Party Agenda
LP Canidates Debate
All these links are RTSP, so you need some kind of special client for them. I personally was not able to watch them online (I did catch them on TV though). If someone knows of a location of MPEG2 or AVI+MPEG4 encodings that would be better than special protocols that don't seem to work with the linux clients I've tried.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Mr. Badnarik, how would you have responded to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center? Would you have perceived the attack as an act of war, or as a criminal act? Please outline your view of the nature of the attack, how you would have handled it and how you might handle future attacks.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
Just like a Democrat need not support lifetime welfare and not all Republicans are Bible-thumpers, moderate Libertarians are the norm.
A majority of Libertarians -- even those actively involved with the party -- support government services and financial disclosure regulations.
Should the government require union membership in order to mop a floor, or owning a $150,000 taxi medallion to drive a cab? Just about all Libertarians will agree it should not. Most Libertarians fall in the huge gray area between that and a privately-run society.
It's probably worth noting that the Libertarian economic perspective is more grounded in current science than any other party's policy. Logic is the common trait among Libertarians I know, and I suspect their views would evolve based on real-world results.
How do you feel about geolibertarianism? Are you for, against, or indifferent to the idea of a Land Value Tax as a way to charge for control of resources without taxing productivity?
Just a few feet further and we can privatize the roads. Then put tollbooths on our sections. Won't need a speedtrap too, since the tollbooths won't let you get up any speed, to speak of.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's safe to say he already did. Go watch his Intro to the Constitution. I've seen it on torrent sites as well.
Badnarik is pretty far off the deep end, where Harry Browne (2000 candidate) was much more moderate. Learn more about the party (and moderate Libertarians) before dismissing it based on just Badnarik's views.
What methods would you use to protect those resources which cannot be denoted as belonging to a specific person? Examples that I would give include the air and water resources in an area, where one person's waste products will disperse and potentially harm a large number of people.
Mr. Badnarik, it has been reported that you believe that the federal government has no authority to collect income taxes, that felons should be forced to serve the first month of their sentences in bed, causing muscle atrophy, and that a Libertarian Party administration should blow up the United Nations building in New York. Does this report accurately represent your views? If so, do you feel that your views are representative of Libertarian Party members or, more broadly, of libertarians in America?
Imagine the US population is 100 times or even 1000 times the current size. How can our society function without some sort of referee in the form of the government mandating rules to protect us from eliminating all our natural resources?
One thing people seem to forget when they blast the electoral college is how population is distributed in this country. A little googling showed that as of a few years ago, in "developed nations" on average 76+% of the population resided in "urban" areas. Ask yourself, if our presidential elections were based solely on number of votes, what happens when someone campaigns solely for the needs of the urban population and utterly neglects the rural? My guess is, unless the other candidate does the same, he will be pretty much guaranteed a victory. Think about that for a second. If a massive majority of your population fits a certain demographic, your best bet is to appeal solely to that majority. The electoral college, while IMHO fairly broken, does at least guarantee that the votes of large expanses of farm country might have a chance of making a difference. The electoral college helps ensure majority rule with some consideration for minority rights. I don't know that it's the best solution, but I definitely don't believe a flat out majority is the way to go.
Given your history of radical practices (i.e. not paying your taxes), what would you say to a conservative republican, like me, who's a little nervous about voting for you?
Jay | http://oldos.org
It could be that he's just tired of seeing people killed in what amounts to a relgious war between the "our" christians and "their" muslems. What is it, 20,000 people or so? Not WWIII perhaps, but still a lot of dead people whose main failing seems to have been not backing the right brand of god.
Yes, I know there have been all sorts of other explanations offered (9/11, WMD, etc.) but those don't hold up to a minute's thought. If we were striking back for 9/11, why didn't we even look at Saudi Arabia? If it was WMD, why are North Korea (or South Korea for that matter) largly ignored?
I'm a Republican, and not particularly scared, but I'm sick of my country and my party being hijacked by the "moral" right to go kill infidels. You don't need to "threaten" how much worse four more years of this will be.
-- MarkusQ
There have been proposals to eliminate the electoral college. Notably, Slate has run a series of pieces calling it "America's worst college." Slate's coverage has examined some of the political difficulties in trying to change the system and has proposed some possible solutions.
It's clear from the results of 1992 that the electoral college, as currently implemented at the national and state level, tends to turn small spreads into large ones, and eliminates 3rd parties altogether. As a 3rd party candidate, this must be an important issue to you (after ballot access, perhaps the most important one).
How do you propose to address this? Would you support an amendment to the US Constitution to abolish the Electors in favor of direct popular vote? Or, would it make more sense to address it state by state, using legislation to split the electors proportionately within each state (as Maine and Nebraska do)?
"I don't know about you, but I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to donate if I wasn't so busy making ends meet on what little of my earnings government "allows" me to keep."
That's one viewpoint. My opinion is that people are generally cheap bastards (myself included), and wouldn't donate more if we weren't taxed at all. After all, don't poorer people donate more money (by percentage) than richer people, despite having less disposable income?
How many religious people do you know that tithe? Despite earning eternal salvation? I think this goes to my point above (cheap bastards....)
That's a classic false dichotomy. Suppose you can define a differentiable function r(p) to represent the revenue received at a tax rate p. Now, r(0) will obviously be 0. However, it's pretty clear that r(p) will also be 0 when p reaches a certain high value. For example, if p is "10000%", then you'd be completely insane to earn a single dollar of income since you'd have to pay it back ten-fold. Now, given that you have a function with at least two zeros and at least one point above zero, there must be at least one local maximum on the graph of that function. Call the p-value of that maximum "m".
In a nutshell, Democrats believe that p is currently less than m. Republicans believe that p is greater than m. Now, you can argue back and forth all day about which if either is correct (we could be at a local minimum so that moving in either direction would be a gain), but pretty much every economist believes that you can roughly describe the relationship between taxation rate and revenue in this way.
Implying that cutting taxes to raise revenue is impossibly stupid demonstrates either an ignorance of economic theory or deliberate deception.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
First of all, I voted for Harry Brown last time around and I intend to vote Libertarian again. As a Massachusetts resident, I have the luxury of voting my conscience rather than voting against Shrub and I fully intend to exercise it. The "lesser evil" approach has always bothered me on principle.
The thing is, however, I don't really buy the entirety of the Libertarian platform. While I firmly believe that a Libertarian president (bear with me, guys... we're talking principles, not probability) would take some steps towards reform that would do a great deal of good for the country as a whole, I find the whole basic premise of the party to be flawed in one crucial fashion, which (finally) leads to my question:
How much of the Libertarian platform is based upon the belief that citizens and entities will automatically act in the public's best interest when liberated from governmental interference and how do you defend the basic concept against those who think that people and corporations are too inherently selfish to make universal deregulation function in a safe and productive fashion?
I think of taxes for incomes over 500K as "mandatory donations". For every Bill Gates that donates a few million dollars to charities there are 5 that wouldn't give a dime, regardless of their tax burden. They'll just save their money and retire earlier/buy a bigger boat.Lowering taxes for the rich only leads to overconcentration of wealth into a few hands. History has taught us that this kind of situations lead to violence every single time. If the common man lived well under them, the Russian Tzar and the King of France would be ruling to this day.Without a mechanism to stop greed on one side and envy on the other, we're not going anywhere. Western democracies are still in reasonably good health because an elected government is there to control those primal instincts for the common good. Try to change the government so that it works for the good of all of us, instead of just making sure it has so little power it cannot really do anything.
I'd rather get rid of taxes for those earning under 10K/yr, those guys are the ones that now need charity to both eat, pay their taxes and their medical bills. If you want to go a little further, use any regulating mechanism you want to make health care affortable. Weakening patents could help.
I used to think of myself as a libertarian, until I heard about Gerald Bull.
Gerald Bull was an engineer who, since he was a child, wanted to launch satellites into outer space with artillery, but could find no first world country to fund his research. Finally, the Iraqis did, and he began creating a supergun for that purpose. Israel, feeling threatened by the gun, purportedly had the Mossad kill Dr. Bull.
So, Dr. Bull was not coercive, but he was killed, and the killing seems justified. The gun posed a threat to the state of Israel. After warning Bull to stop, the Mossad had no option but to kill Bull to prevent this threat.
So, if you agree there are instances where those who have not coerced anyone are justifiably coerced, then coersion is sometimes necessary. Therefore, isn't coersion a given, and just a matter of degree (i.e., there is no fundamental philisophical basis for the libertarian party, the conclusion which I've reluctantly drawn).
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
How many times have you been arrested?
Good point. Although, the true purpose of a strike is usually to intimidate "scabs" and prevent production. Communication with customers can be accomplished much more effectively in other ways.
Mr. Badnarik,
I am a long time supporter of the Libertarian Party.
Do you think that the Libertarian Party will ever get taken seriously by the mainstream press?
Why is it that the Libertarian Party, which has been the 3rd largest party for over a decade, has received nowhere near the serious consideration given to parties like the Green and Reform parties?
Are corporations people? Do they have rights?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sorry, but it is true.
Do you think that Libertarians living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's would have been justified in leaving their homeland to find a land with more freedoms?
If so, what do you think modern Libertarians that believe that the 2000 election was stolen and that the Federal government is so out of control (PATRIOT Act, etc.) that moving to a nation with more freedom is the only alternative?
Polling suggests that libertarian ideals are incredibly popular among American voters, with the exception of the Libertarian Party's ostensible advocacy for drug legalization. How much negative impact do you believe the Libertarian Party's stance on the "War on Drugs" has on its ability to secure votes, and do you believe Libertarians could improve their chances in November by toning down their collective approach to the issue?
- According to your opinion on Middle East:
Yet, Osama bin Laden is on record stating, that it was our going to Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 (to defend that country from Iraq's aggression), that is the reason for his hostility towards us.
- That same page
also states, that:
Do you not consider Israel's continuing existence -- despite abundance of vicious and heavily armed by the USSR enemies -- a success of American "meddling"?
Thank you.In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Let's be fair, here. It also happened at the Democratic Convention.
Seth Finklestein once wrote an essay titled "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid" . What are your thoughts on the essay?
On a related note, I heard a portion of your interview on NPR a week or two ago. It wasn't very clear from your answers whether you accepted the Supreme Court's assertion that corporations are protected by the 13th ammendment. I came away from the interview believing you did accept the assertion. While not a direct contradiction, the LP platform supports ending "sovereign immunity" for governments, but it doesn't seem to mention anything regarding the rights of corporations.
I submitted a form on your website for a free bumper sticker a couple weeks ago. The site says that it shouldn't take long for it to get here. Where is it? I want my bumper sticker, demmit!
...to Compuser, Bandarik, and the LP!
It's the Libertarian Party's desire for a less powerful federal government (or none at all), in addition to the imperialistic and authoritarian actions of the Bush administration that have driven my friends and I toward the Libertarian Party.
Most Americans are too busy or too involved with their own lives (not always a bad thing) to get involved or concern themselves with the goings-on of their government. By indifference and inaction, we're only cutting our own throats!
War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!
I can hear us chanting it now...
Sig? No thanks, I'm trying to quit.
In general I agree with the Libertarian approach to corporate misdeeds: make them pay to clean up their own mess.
;-) Even under a Libertarian system, sooner or later some bozo would cause more damage than he could afford to correct, leaving the people/the government holding the bag.
However, this doesn't address the issue of corporations that do more damage than they can pay for. Enron springs to mind.
If the goal is to allow corporations the freedom to act as they choose until they do something wrong, and then force them to correct their bad actions when they are caught, how would you deal with a situation like Enron, or the Savings and Loan scandals of the 80s?
And saying that these scandals wouldn't have happened if corporations were freed of unnecessary regulation is ducking the issue.
you're a self-described constitutional scholar. is there anything in the constitution that you feel should be changed? removed? is there anything missing?
I don't know about you, but I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to donate if I wasn't so busy making ends meet on what little of my earnings government "allows" me to keep.
Surely, you realize that you only feel that way because you're accustomed to the current level of taxation, and anything less would feel like a "relief," right? I mean, if your taxes were suddenly reduced to 40%, would you say "Hallelujah, I'm donating half of my bonus 10% to charity!" ? I doubt it. You'd get used to 40%, spend the extra cash on a slightly bigger house and a slightly nicer car, then complain that you're overtaxed again, a few years down the road.
This argument can be logically extended through having your taxes reduced to 30%, 20%, and even 10%. You'd still groan and complain about having 1/10th of your income accosted by the government, and you'd claim that if they didn't take so much, you'd donate more to charity.
I'm not saying this would happen rapidly. It would happen over a period of decades. But no matter what the taxation level, people would get used to it, adjust their spending habits so that they're always living at the very edge of their means (or even slightly beyond it, thanks to credit), and complain about not having enough money. It's not just you, it's human nature. People just plain aren't as charitable as you seem to think they are.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Since corporations are designed to limit liability of their investors, and thus their responsibility in the case of massive debt, but also in the case of severe moral breaches (say, killing people via chemical spills), does the LP support the government-ordained construction of corporations at all?
If so, can you explain how the idea of corporations fit within the framework of 'free trade' with responsibility?
If not, what will you do to dismantle corporations and end the unwarranted protection of investors?
<3 cretin
Charity only does so much because our means to donate is severely hampered by government
People have a hell of a lot more purchasing power now than people did 50 years ago, right? Why are people not giving with the additional purchasing power?
I propose that the answer is that they are too busy keeping up with the Jones's. If everyone paid less taxes, everyone would have more money (an idea I don't nesesarily agree with, but for arguments sake...), do you think that people would give it to charity? No, some asshole is going to by a nicer car, then someone else with think they NEED that bling bling. More and more people will commit their additional disposable income to purchaces that they feel they need (do you drive a used honda civic, or compairable vehicle?).
The people that give now, after taxes, would keep giving. The people who think they can't afford to give now, will not think they can afford to give with low taxes.
I can't find any referances now (if any of you can post a link, I would appreciate it greatly), but I read a study a while back that showed people who give, give regardless of how much they have, and people who don't give, don't give regardless of how much they have.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I've considered myself a Libertarian since I first discovered the party when Andre Marrou ran for president in 1992. I even joined the party and agree with almost everything the party stands for down the line. There is one major issue I do have a different opinion on though: Iraq and the war on terrorism.
I disagree with your reasoning for why they hate us (as stated on your website). I believe they hate us because we do not have a system based on Islamic law. We both seem to agree that they do hate us. I believe we can't ignore that they have plotted, executed, and intend to continue executing a campaign of attacks on the United States.
I'm all for limited government, but protection against foreign enemies is definately one of the valid purposes of a federal government.
So much for the build up, here's the question: If you believe the Bush administration's policy on the war on terror is the wrong method, what would you as President do differently to put an end to (or at least significantly diminish) acts of terrorism?
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
"I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions ... that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights."
If the bill of rights was intended to limit state as well as federal government, then this proposal makes no sense. That Madison proposed this in addition to what became the first and sixth amendments means that those amendments did not apply to the states, and Madison thought those restrictions needed to be on the states as well as the federal gov.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Large expanses... of land, not people. Why should someone from the farms have more voting power than someone from the city?
Also, it's not like the interests of the two demographics are mutually opposed. People in the city need to eat, you know.
I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian overlords...
Sig? No thanks, I'm trying to quit.
The war in Iraq seems to be a relatively devisive issue within the Libertarian Party and movement. Your stance seems to be staunchly against the war. What are your plans, if any, to reach out to pro-war libertarians?
Mr. Badnarik -
In a recent Washington Times article entitled "Third parties seen as threat to Bush" you were quoted as saying, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for."
As a Libertarian leaning voter, this statement concerned me. Traditionally, the word conservative has been used to describe those who believe in smaller government, which is certainly a Libertarian position. However, it's also a word used to describe those who wish to legislate morality and religious doctrine, which I can't imagine being something any Libertarian would support.
Can you clarify this quote? What aspects of conservatism do you see as being in line with Libertarian values, and at what points do the two diverge?
Michael, I'm really excited about your candidacy, and I'm looking forward to voting for you in the upcoming election.
My concern is, if you are elected, how will you implement your visionary policies concerning drugs, free-trade, and gun control? They all sound crucial and agreeable, but I haven't seen anything about how you'd push such reforms through congress - the last thing we need is expansion of the Imperial Presidency - where an irresponsible congress has left too much power open to usurping.
I think there are two different schools of thought on not paying taxes - the first is that the 16th admendment wasn't ratified properly, and thus isn't valid, and the other admits the 16th was ratified properly, but denies that it gave Congress any new jurisdiction.
The second school of thought states something along these lines - Congress does have the right to tax income from whatever source derived, but 'source' is defined in the law as only foreign sources. (26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1))
The second school states that Congress always had the right to impose taxes on interstate commerce, but never on intra-state. The 16th admendment does not extend the right of Congress to tax intra-state commerce.
So, which is your stance on taxes? The 'not properly ratified' stance, or the second 'ratified but not applicable' stance, and why?
If you get elected, will you force your libertarian views on people who don't agree? Would that be a libertarian act?
All your favorite sites in one place!
Two websites I would like every libertarian reader of this article to know about:
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Here is South Carolina, you cannot depend on the Internet to get your message out. How do you plan to let the general public know about you in places were the Internet is not as possible?
-jls
Techno-pagan
LaRouche has never run as a Libertarian and anyone who tells you say is uninformed or lying.
Mr. Bandarik, assuming the United States government continues its trend, how long do you think it will take before America becomes a police state?
Sig? No thanks, I'm trying to quit.
Ostensibly, free trade should rectify the imbalance except that China, who accounts for $14.9b of our monthly deficit, has its currency pegged to the dollar. Additionally, the corrective forces of free trade would involve a staggering readjustment of the dollar (i.e. crash). What steps would you take regarding China's currency, and what is your attitude toward a plummeting dollar vis a vis the $600b yearly deficit?
Do you feel more comfortable with the social restrictions that the R's are trying to impose or with the tax increases and regulatory restrictions that the D's are imposing (I assume that both are equally bad in their support for the police neo-state)? Or do you think that any 3'rd party support is good so you'd endorse Nader?
That is all.
There are only the rights that we choose to honor and uphold in others. Rights exist within the framework of a society, without society, no rights can exist. When there is barbarism and no rule of law, there are no rights. If one were the only person on the planet, there would be no rights either: the concept would be meaningless. Complete freedom and the concept of rights are mutually exclusive, e.g., my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. My right to pollute interferes with your right to breath.
Therefore, government or societal regulation is in fact the same thing as enforcement of rights. We, the people, through our elected goverenment, agree which rights we will uphold in others. Only by agreeing to uphold those rights in others can we be garaunteed those rights ourselves. Upholding the rights of others amounts to regulating people who would infringe those rights. I simply don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, and I suspect the ambiguity is simply a ploy to cover up sloppy and or inconsistant thinking in the Libertarian platform with the semantic smokescreen of 'natural rights.' If I am mistaken, please explain how the concept of natural rights are in fact distinct from regulation.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
so no one will ever know what they stand for.
m
http://www.commondreams.org/views/100100-103.ht
(from an October 2000 article)
The televised debates are the single most influential forum for American voters and offer a rare opportunity to hear candidates' ideas in more than 10-second sound bites. Real debates now have been replaced by in the commission's own words--nationally televised joint appearances between nominees of the two major political parties." Yet the commission has the nerve to call itself "non-partisan."
The commission effectively decides which candidates we see with no public accountability. Corporations pay the commission's bills, led by Anheuser Busch Inc. buying its own debate $550,000 for exclusive sponsorship of the upcoming commission event in St. Louis. The corporate sponsors are unlikely to protest the exclusion of candidates questioning, say, the legitimacy of corporations funding political campaigns. Citizens should.
New commission requirements mandate that a candidate possess the expected votes of 15 percent of the public to share a stage with the two dominant parties' candidates three times the 5 percent threshold parties must meet to receive public election funds. Moreover, the five corporate media polls used to determine support routinely add the option of third-party candidates only after asking whether the respondent supports Bush or Gore marginalizing other candidateswith the poll itself.
In the previous 40 years, only two candidates from outside the two dominant parties have participated in the presidential debates: John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992. Perot would have been banned from the debates under current criteria, Anderson's eligibility would have depended on the polls chosen.
"To me! To me! Elves and Men! To me! O my kinsfolk!" he cried, and his voice shook like a horn in the valley.-J.R.R.T.
I was at your rally at Beefeaters in Phoenix, but I missed the chance to ask you about tort reform:
What is your position on tort reform, and what reforms should be done?
Latewire
I've been a Libertarian ever since the Ron Paul presidential campaign. But the party has never seen another candidate like Ron Paul. Instead it seems like it deliberately chooses candidates from the extreme fringe. Even when they wear suits and ties their views aren't likely to appeal to any but a trivial segment of voters.
The Libertarian Party needs another mainstream candidate. By "mainstream" I don't mean a Kerry or Bush clone. There's no need to sacrifice your beliefs in order to appeal to the voters. What I mean by "mainstream" is attitude, style and a balance of priorities. Instead of presenting an extremist anarcho-capitalist who is only going to appeal to other extremist anarcho-capitalists, why not field a candidate who actually has a chance of garnering a few percentage points?
Do you plan to campaign for actual votes, or are you merely running a didactic campaign? Will you appeal to the mainstream libertarian-leaning conservative or liberal, or is your audience just the faithful few crackpots in the LP? Should our hope of a free society rest with the official Libertarian Party, or should we be looking at libertarian caucuses in the Democrat and Republican parties?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Large expanses... of land, not people. Why should someone from the farms have more voting power than someone from the city?
Why should people from the city be the only ones who are campaigned to or whose interests matter? People are as a rule selfish and only look out for their own good. People in the city are not going to give two shits about anything that they don't see a direct benefit from. The minority, in a sense, DOES need more power per person, to make that group have a chance of being heard at all. Electoral votes are still based on population, so it's not like a thousand farmers are getting the same votes as a million city dwellers, but at least there's actually a chance they might be able to influence things.
Also, it's not like the interests of the two demographics are mutually opposed. People in the city need to eat, you know.
And you honestly expect Joe Average Voter to look at a campaign ad and say "hey this guy is going to put in place a program to help farmers educate their children, that will definitely help me eat better"? Give me a break. Farmers are people too, they don't just exist to provide a service to you.
I don't get how you can possible see the ability to villifiy or deify an political or corporate institution as a good. The propensity of geeks to claim that they're being opressed by evil entities makes us sound completely absurd. And it sure as hell doesn't help further the nature of political discourse in the country - it just leads to partisan yelling and bickering. There are already too many people who see the republicans as evil and the democrats as good, and vice versa. Is it that hard to beleive that all the political parties want what they feel is best for the country?
I grew up in a republican family and I used to beleive that the democrats were evil. Why not - everything they did made no sense to my young mind. I immediately disregarded anyone who tried to say that the republicans were doing something bad or stupid - obviously this person didn't know anything. It was only my incredibly strong desire to ask 'why' about everything I observe that led me to the current realization that I've got: The democrats think their way of running the country is the best, while the republicans think their way is best. They both like the country and they both want america to be better off; they just disagree on how to accomplish that.
Saying that one group is evil and one group is good certaintly isn't going to help the different political groups in america start to rationally consider their differences and debate the benefits of policy- all it does is promote fighting. Do you honeslty think you're going to convince republicans to seiriously consider the libertarian point of view if you go and tell them the republican party is evil? Likewise, saying that the democratic party is evil will only further their desire to prevent the democrats from coming to power, no matter what.
The libertarian party already has an ill-deserved reputation for being a bunch of kooks. Saying that that the the major parties are 'evil' really isn't going to help matters. I used to consider myself a republican. Now I consider myself a libertarian conservative. I didn't change my stance because of someone convincing me that my former beleifs were evil. I changed my opinions because of rational thought about the implications and effects of government policy. If you want to get more people to seriously consider the libertarian party, you're not going to help yourself by telling them that their current beleifs are just evil. You need to get them to stop and consider the motives and ideals behind the politics and consider the real world ramifications of the ideas of the libertarian party.
My blog
Why should I vote for you if you won't even follow basic laws like paying your income taxes or getting a driver's license?
"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."
candidate. Although he does toe the party line quite well.
"Do you still plan to evict the UN delegates in New York and level the building a week later? Isn't there an inherent paradox about property rights and Libertarian thought somewhere in that?"
"If your Libertarian principals are so important, why haven't you moved to Somalia yet?"
If a two party system is "more stable" than a larger number of parties, surely by your thinking a one party state is the logical way forwards?
Libertarianism certainly is an appealing ideology, but are you concerned that ideological based politics (whether yours or others) often precludes the adoption of pragmatic solutions to real problems?
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Blaming interventionist American foreign policy for 9-11 and not the people who did it? Then follow up with taking campaign donations in amounts of $9.11 to $1,909.11?
Do you think that mocking a national tradegy is anyway for a 3rd party candidate to endear himself to the citizens of the US?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Mr. Badnarik, If elected, how will you spend the first 100 days of your presidency?
Libertarianism places much emphasis on the theory that individuals can pull themselves up by their bootstraps to success. With good enough education, the theory goes, even the poorest members of our society should be able to become wealthy entrepreneurs. Under this model, if you're impoverished, it's simply because you're not trying hard enough. But bootstrapping is a myth; even if it were possible (for many people it is just not), millions of people do not have the desire to start their own business, and simply want to make a fair and livable wage working their 9-5 job.
Because Libertarianism is even more conservative than Republicanism, impoverished people would be denied many of the resources they need to survive. Libertarians call for the dismantling of welfare, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and the reliance on private charities to care for our neediest citizens. Reagan gave us a taste of this logic when he all but dismantled the federal financial aid program for college students. The theory was that the private sector would step up and help our nation's students.
They didn't.
Instead, students and their families often face the burden of massive debt upon graduation, limiting their ability to start building their lives. The Libertarians point out that Americans already contribute over $125 billion to charity already. But Social Security alone contributes $535 billion to our citizens. That much cannot be generated from charitable contributions, even if the tax benefit is increased.
If Libertarians such as yourself had their way, our nation's poor would sink even deeper into poverty and debt while our nation's wealthy would grow wealthier and wealthier. Sure, the rich would donate to private charities to lessen their tax burden--but less "sexy" charities would suffer. Would you rather give money to a charity for mentally disabled homeless people (who now receive Social Security), or to Cancer research?
The role of government is to take care of its citizens, and ensure that we do the right things for society. Private corporations and organizations have no such goals, and cannot be entrusted with such responsibilities. If Libertarians had their way, the government would step back and let people sink or swim. This is short-sighted, cynical and above all, cruel.
Which brings me to my question, Mr. Badnarik: If the government is there to care for its citizens, why do you want to outsource this responsibility to the private sector, which has no real incentive to work for the public good? In short, where is the compassion?
Sincerely, Ben Syverson
The problem is, most polarizing interests aren't geographical. What if a candidate appealed only to white people? Only to middle-class people? Only to heterosexual people? Do we need a similar system to better balance out the representation of the minorities those approaches would exclude?
...
Furthermore, in a one-vote-per democracy, the majority viewpoint is supposed to rule; our constitution is supposed to protect us against unjust oppression of minorities. It's not a perfect sysem - sometimes the minority is right. But arbitrarily buffering the strength of the majority really doesn't do anything to make the system more just. It just makes it less represenatitive. The minority viewpoint, in many cases, is in the minority for a reason. Most people don't believe we need a massive and costly protection against UFOs. Most people don't think free chocolate cake for everyone named Bob is a great idea. Most people don't think spending time on slashdot when they should be working is productive
Constitutional protection of freedom of speech (when truly protected) garuntees those with minority viewpoints have, at the least, an option to inject their viewpoints into the discussion of the commons. Ideally, solid, reasonable, views gain some support over time. But arbitrarily giving extra weight to the minorirty views, whether proven or not, is foolish.
Are you concerned that the copyright and patent laws in the country have been used by powerful lobbying groups to stifle competition and the development of technological, scientific and artistic achievement? If so, what are you thoughts on how this problem can be fixed?
It seems to me that the original intent of these laws was to encourage achievements in those areas, but that now, the monetary interests of those who hold existsing copyrights and patents has been used to stifle development of new, competing, and other useful ideas. There has to be a balance between those seeking to protect the ideas they have created, and those seeking to develope new ones. How can that balance be reached?
I swear PowerPoint is going to be the downfall of higher education in western society.
What's your position on illegal immigration and/or outsourcing? I would think a libertarian would say "keep the gov't out of it". However, at some point, doesn't having too much of either outsourcing or illegal immigration ultimately impact our national socio-economic stability?
Chalmers Johnson (The Sorrows of Empire), Michael Mann (Incoherent Empire), and Niall Ferguson (Colussus) - among others - have all covered the story of today's American Empire. Since our founding fathers chose to secede from the grips of the British Empire in the 1770s, it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are people who would prefer NOT to live under the (economic and military) influence of Washington DC. The clear-cut Libertarian path would surely be to "downsize" America's imperial aspirations. Having said that, there are (obviously) strong and powerful groups with vested interests in maintaining (or even furthering) the American Empire. As President, how would you handle these challenges?
What would your stand be on such laws like the INDUCE act, and the DMCA?
$
(I'm enough of a privacy nut that I don't even have an account on a website devoted to geeks and closet libertarians, so pardon my AC post.)
How do we deal with data aggregators? Allowing them to continue operating makes a mockery of the principle of privacy in this country, and allows the Federal government to sidestep restrictions on dossier-building. Forbidding them to do business puts government in a harsh regulatory role (where it doesn't belong) and erodes speech rights. A middling position would seem to bring the worst of both extremes.
Do you see a way out of this conundrum?
Even then, however, that is more money being pumped into the private sector. More things are being purchased, demand is going up. So, companies increase output and new companies are created, all to meet that demand. So now we have jobs being created, making less "losers" in the system, so now less people are requiring help. At least thats how things would work in theory ;)
-Doug
What progress has the Libertarian Party made in this regard? How many US elective offices of any sort are currently held by people who ran as a Libertarian, and are registered as a Libertarian or Independent?
Luke, help me take this mask off
The libertarian political philosophy presupposes an equivalence of power among citizens in order to funtion properly ( that is without becoming a tyranny or degenerating into a Darwinian bloodbath). Since the starting point is so obviously unequal, how can society recalibrate to equalize these relationships? And no cheating here, you can't simply wish away the problem, unless, of course you wish to defend the uneven power relationships themselves, and all that flows from that.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Relying on people dieing in order to safeguard our food. What kind of quality control is that?
Also, why are you libertarians such selfish, social rejects?
Having attempted to run for office (California Assembly District 22) as a Libertarian candidate, I know first hand how difficult life can be for 'third-party' candidates. Although the Libertarian Party officially supports the adoption of IRV policies, it has not made this a primary advertising focus.
Based on my personal experience with the electoral process, it is my conclusion that it will be nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to win a major election in the US.
The problem of the 'wasted vote' (voting for a candidate because they have a chance of winning instead of voting for the candidate who most closely represents your views), it seems, will forever prevent progress for third-party politics in thsi country.
Do you think that the Libertarian Party, and your presidential campaign, could better spend it's resources with an all-out effort to make IRV the national standard for both state and federal elections?
-jason
Though I find Libertarianism fairly uninteresting as a political movement, the idea behind the Free State Project is quite compelling. Do you see a future for small parties like yourselves, the Greens, etc. through this type of action? This seems to me to be the most viable way for small parties to gain actual political power and test the merit of their political positions.
I used to work with this man in a call center for Microsoft.
My question is: As a man who doesn't believe in taxes, and who doesn't pay taxes - why should we as a people trust you with OUR tax money?
I'm a true liberal, but like I said I've worked w/ Mr. Bagnarick, and he is very extreme in his beliefs.
Rather I'm saying that if all public property is privatized, do civil rights have any meaning at all?
Under some definitions these civil rights would no longer exist. But but the same definitions they don't exist *today* outside of government land for the same reason. The problem is that the definition is bad.
There is no right to free speech, per se. It is not something granted to you by the government. Either you have it innately (via God, nature, birth, etc) or you do not have it at all. All the first ammendment does is prohibit government from taking it away from you. The constitution does not guarantee you free speech, it merely guarantees that the government won't take it away.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Through the 80's the US was assured that the losses in domestic industrial jobs (ex. the automotive sector) would be more than made up for by new technology jobs. Here we are, twenty years later, and the growth of such jobs is mostly in "low-wage" countries. This makes complete sense for the employers involved, it's their duty to shareholders to get labor at the cheapest cost. Libertarian and free-market economic philosophy looks at this as a generally good thing, goods/services get produced at the lowest cost. The numbers are not dire (with regards to "job loss"), but the trends are disturbing for those of us who are getting a bit long-in-the-tooth to change careers. To get to the point: - Countries such as India and China have socialized health care, which eliminates the burden that corporations have with US employers, how would you address this discrepancy? - Is there any room in the Libertarian philosophy to maintain some level of economic inefficiency (i.e. subsidization) to maintain the capacity to domestically produce certain goods and services that have strategic importance to our nations needs (i.e. do we offsource nuclear warhead construction because Iran will build them cheaper than us? do we let Boeing fold because Airbus, subsidized by the EU, can provide jets more cost-effectively?) - The governments of some countries are aggressively pursuing relationships with corporations by providing them land and other resources to set up shop? How can the US, which has relatively strict restrictions for such public/private relationships (with the exception of Texas-based energy companies), compete with governments willing to "bribe" corporations to locate and employ there?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Dear sir, I seem to consistently have a hard time squaring the Libertarian philosophy with the realities of the world we live in.
My belief is that Libertarianism appeals so strongly to Americans because we live in the land of plenty. Libertarianism is a very convenient political philosophy to have if you live in a country with abundant natural resources, plenty of land, and the world's largest military to maintain the hegemony.
In other words, if the cards are already stacked in your favor, yeah a "free market" is a good thing. Pay no attention to the slave labor who built this country or the former inhabitants who have mostly been ethnically cleansed.
Is Libertarianism really only appropriate for rich, "developed" countries such as the United States?
And please set me straight regarding what I see as pie-in-the-sky talk of "free markets." It might be true that free markets will result in competition and benefits for the consumer. But we will simply never know that. Look at all the barriers to free trade in our country and throughout the world. Those will not simply be swept away as cobwebs before a broom. And yet, Libertarianism seems particularly regulation-hostile, which makes me wonder if you think Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was merely Communist propaganda of a hundred years ago.
I think an illustrative example would be the Enron or WorldCom bubbles. Both of those, you may agree, stemmed from some degree of deregulation in the market. And yet where is the payoff? It's in the offshore accounts of a handful of oligarchs. Now, you might argue that the method of deregulation was flawed, but the primacy of human greed cannot simply be "explained away" because regulators set the game in motion with poorly devised initial conditions. How can you be sure future deregulation won't be so disastrous? (It should be obvious, I'll trust my essential servcies like water and power to a bumbling government bureaucracy working for everyone over a cutthroat profit-driven corporation working for shareholders any day.)
From what I can determine, Libertarianism embraces the central tenets of Capitalism -- that people are lazy, and that people are greedy. I ask you: Are those really healthy core values to be driving your politics?
Finally I do wish you luck on achieving critical mass and taking over one of the smaller state legislatures. Better we perform our experiments in Capitalism on our own people than our unfortunate subjects in Iraq.
First you tell me a story that seems to support privatization. Then you tell me it is not true and follow up by listing a source of many other false stories. Then you list the myth (what is the distinction between a "government" inspector and a "public" one). You then conclude by stating (without any proof that I can see) that privatization is good.
How does this all tie together?
...not Libertarians. Most geeks just want the government off their back when it comes to information, free speech, and copyright/patent issues.
However, ask geeks whether they think it's a good idea to deny our poorest citizens the support and resources they rely on. Ask geeks whether they think it's a good idea to privatize the primary role of the government, which is to take care of its citizens. Ask geeks if they really think private companies will act in the best interests of society, rather than their bottom line. Ask geeks if they look forward to getting no help whatsoever from the government when it comes time to send their kids to school--not to college, but to kindergarten! Libertarians want to privatize everything, and our poorest citizens would pay the largest price.
Ask geeks if they agree with all that. Ask them if they're truly that devoid of compassion and civic responsibility. If they do, then they're truly Libertarian, and truly scary.
Ben
That theory ignores government spending as an economic stimulus. Money the government stops spending means employees of the govt and govt contractors are forced to seek other jobs.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
What is your opinion on the role of antitrust legislation in our society, especially with regard to Microsoft?
Vote for Pedro
The last time around I voted for Nader because I had no preference between Bush and Gore (I'm so sorry world). I thought a vote for Nader would help to strengthen third party candidates for the long term.
I've always considered myself to be mostly republican but cannot see how any true republican could vote for these people in power at the moment. Their agenda is their own and bears little to no resemblance to that of a republican. I wish to get the current administration out of the Whitehouse but am having an very difficult time stomaching the idea of voting for that creep Kerry.
If Kerry wins, Bush is gone and that's an incredibly good thing but then we're stuck with Kerry for 4 years and Kerry will be the democratic nominee in 2008. Dean, whom I loved, will be finished unless he runs as a republican (that would be interesting) or as a libertarian etc., in which case he is done.
Your views on the issues are actually right in line with my own but why should I waste my vote by voting for you?
Given the high rate of voter apathy in the USA, do you think a majority of voters will ever wake up and realize that government is our master rather than our servant? If so, would you care to predict approximately when you think that might happen and what type of event (if any), will portend it?
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
As you'll see by no doubt many of the less kind replies here, a great majority of the nation does not consider third-party voting viable, although one could argue that inroads were made by Nader and Perot in past elections.
But, to my knowledge, no third-party candidate in the 20th century ever received enough votes, or polled high enough during campaigns, to have been a substantial, suspenseful competitor to the existing two political parties.
Does the Libertarian Party hope to ever be such a competitor? Or (truly, no offense intended) does your presence in a Presidential race merely give the Libertarian Party a public platform from which to more widely disseminate their platform and ideas -- in short, a public relations campaign repeated every four years?
of plurality elections. 3rd party candidates are severely disadvantaged, and having them present introduces all kinds of bad things. Its not impossible for them to win, just very difficult, and more likely they will just swing the election against the causes they represent.
2 3&cid=10237248
See my post here: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1216
This can all be avoided by systems which rank candidates, or use other mechanisms to avoid the vote splitting/spoiler effect/ strategic voting etc which causes our polarlized system where two parties dominate.
How do you respond to this situation?
A paper mill opens upstream from a small town. The mill begins dumping chemicals into the river. As the town's health problems slowly begin to increase, property values begin to drop. Eventually the townspeople are dying young of cancer, birthing children with horrific birth defects, and are too poor to be able to move.
This happens today when we have some sort of regulation. It has been empirically demonstrated that most Americans don't care enough about these issues to substantially alter their buying habits to prevent this from happening. If the government abdicates its regulation role, if we unfetter corporations from laws demanding that they behave within certain norms, if the government doesn't have resources to help these people, should we just turn a blind eye and think of these problems as the cost of doing business. Higher GDP built on the lives of someone else's children?
While it is very clear that the government regulates any number of things, it is not consequently the case that no regulation is a better solution.
If you believe all taxes should be eliminated as well as import and export fees, how does a Libertarian president pay for a small core Federal government? LP docs and your website read about cutting, not paying.
Are you saying that a strictly libertarian society would charge per-use fees for the protection of rights, or general fees? Because I don't think that the former is necessary to qualify as strictly libertarian, and the latter would essentially be "the general public" paying the costs.
I read some of your white paper on a comprehensive net asset tax. Isn't it a tax on production if the tax I pay increases when I make improvements on an asset that I've registered? Wouldn't it be better to tax solely on the unimproved value of the raw resource?
As long as the "intimidation" is not physically threatening, that's pretty obviously a form of communication that should be protected and couldn't occur elsewhere.
How would you suggest communicating with customers other than this? Everytime I go to the store, I'd see the picket line and it would prevent me from spacing on it if I cared about the issue. Moreover there would be people there that you could discuss the issues with which could be more powerful than just having an ad run somewhere or something.
Given that the Libertarian ideals for what government should and shouldn't do are correct and given that a Libertarina becomes president, how would we proceed to dismantle much of the current government machinery in an orderly fashion? It looks to be a rather delicate process. Obviously just junking everything immediately that should not be there would destroy the nation's economy. So what could be changed immediately and what needs to be phased in and over what kind of time?
At least someone else pays attention to past news. Bush has said he would sign the bill to extend the ban if Congress could get it through on time.
Do you feel that your lack of a college degree is going to cast doubt upon your viability as a candidate?
It's a valid question, but I don't think you'll get a useful answer by asking the kook. It's a question for the people who selected him as their candidate.
It may be that no responsible person would stand, because there is more at stake at this election than in most presidential elections. I've been a Republican supporter for a long time; I supported Reagan and think he was a great President; ditto Bush I. I think Clinton should have been removed from office and jailed for perjury. I'm telling you those things about my beliefs just so that you'll understand where I'm coming from. Before the last election, a lot of people were saying G. W. Bush was a religious bigot and a know-nothing, but I remembered that the same people had said the same about Reagan 20 years earlier, and been proved wrong; so I supported G.W.B.
But now, after 4 years of this bigot who lacks any respect for the civil values of a democratic society, I am convinced that he is more divisive, and more dangerous to our liberties, than any president I can remember. There is only one reasonable course of action in November, and that is to vote for whoever is most likely to beat Bush. No intelligent person with the good of America at heart would run for President, if this risks drawing more votes away from Bush's opponent than from Bush.
It more or less follows that the Libertarian candidate this year is probably a kook.
communism is fundamentally flawed as it relies too much on altruistic principles- everyone working together for the common good. we are all familiar with the follies that communism has wrought in the world simply because it is out of touch with some basic aspects of human nature: we are all selfish, and work in our own selfish interest.
libertarianism is, in effect, anti-communism. it relies upon selfish principles- everyone working for themselves.
however, the problem with this is that human nature, like much of life as we know it, is a duality. we human beings, on a deeply psychological, innate, unremoveable level, are both altruistic and selfish. and any form of government that emphasizes one aspect of this duality and ignores the other is doomed to fail.
anyone who has a family or friends knows this: that altruism itself is an equal participant in our motivations as selfishness. which, for example, means that while marijuana should be legalized (that's a no-brainer and obvious: it's no worse than alcohol), anyone who has ever cared for a daughter, a son, a father, a mother, etc., could never allow something like heroin to be legal. we simply care too much for our family and friends to see our fellow human beings turned into zombies by that hard core drug. we simply have to take a stand against heroin, damn all the endless war on drugs points that can be made, simply because no one with a human conscience can allow this drug to destroy our fellow human beings, family and friends that we care about.
i mean, statistical inevitability means that pedophilies will always be born anew in society, so we will always be at war with pedophilia too. simply because we will always be at war with something means we should stop fighting it? no, it's simply the wages of maintaining civilization: pedophiles and hard core drug use, and yes, dorothy, terrorism, are things we will be at war with, forever. that's not an observation that should get us depressed, it just is, there's simply no getting around it, there are no easy answers to these problems. and so it should strengthen our resolve to fight these scourges of the age we live in.
the ideal government (so far, we may discover a better one in the future) is one that balances out human nature's intrinsic altruistic and selfish instincts. and so, a basically capitalist system with social safety nets, like the usa, or a basically socialist system, with a capitalist engine, like europe/ canada, are really the best systems we got so far.
the point is, libertarianism is not an improvement over these systems (although these systems are far from perfect, and there is plenty of room for improvement). libertarianism is a folly as equally tragic and dangerous as communism, but in the opposite direction. and because some people are miffed at the exigencies and effluvia of problems with the systems we have in europe/ north america, something like libertarianism, with its dangerous philosophy of selfishness-driven end the war on hard core drugs, is nothing but tragedy in the making. yes, marijuana should be legalized, but you cannot, if you have a human conscience and have seen with your own eyes the cost on society and human beings of something like heroin, allow that drug to be legalized, ever.
libertarianism is simply selfishness wrapped up in a philosophical wrapper, which pretends to give it respectability, when the truth is that libertarianism is repugnant, in the exact same way, to the exact same degree, as communism is, but in the opposite direction.
folks, do not fall for this folly called libertarianism. it is a waste of time and effort, and energy spent in support of libertarianism is simply tragedy in the making, as those who swear by libertarianism are simply out of touch with fundamental altruistic aspects of human nature in much the same way true believers of communism are out of touch with fundamental selfish aspects of human nature.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
from confusing Libertarians with liberals?
I said "no text," dangit!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
As long as the "intimidation" is not physically threatening, that's pretty obviously a form of communication that should be protected and couldn't occur elsewhere.
I agree.
How would you suggest communicating with customers other than this?
Strikes are generally held at production facilities, not retail stores or wholesale outlets, thus the customer does not generally come into contact with strikers. I never have. Ads in the newspaper or press conferences would be much more effective. But, as I said, that is not the purpose of a strike. The purpose is to gain leverage against the owners by stopping production through lack of manpower, achieved by intimidation and/or the simple lack of available workers.
But I concede your point, I think strikes are sometimes legitimate methods of communication which would be impossible without public streets and sidewalks.
Hmm, so this would lead us to expect that in areas that have extremely low taxes, giving to charities would be much higher.
You obviously have empirical data to back this up, don't you?
Oh, what's that? You don't have any at all? Because if you did it would show exactly the opposite result.
This is what happens when you make up "facts" on the basis that they sort of sound right -- eg. "they'll throw flowers at our soldiers! flowers I say!" -- what you get is quite often totally, predictably wrong because you didn't argue from experience but from what was self-flattering and made up. Nice try, but this is Bush-administration style reasoning.
The real reason for the extreme left/right elected officials we see is gerrymandering. Since most districts are drawn up to be either solidly democrat or republican, extreme candidates are favored. Also, once elected, they are assured of reelection, and are best off courting their most fanatical base for donations.
Non gerrymandered possitions, like president and senators, are much less extreme than representatives.
1) Why should I be a member of the Libertarian Party, and not stay an independent?
1-b) What value do you add as a party that isn't better achieved by contributing to organizations with a tighter focus? (e.g. civil liberties orgs, free trade orgs, etc)
2) How would you characterize the interaction (at the party level) between the LP and other parties both big (GOP, DNC) and small (Reform, Green)?
3) Having watched the LP convention on CSPAN, I noted how frequently in the nomination process I heard discussion by delegates as to the candidates "commitment to the ideals of the party". Almost always this meant "How extreme are their beliefs?" with moderates valued less than extremists even though their beliefs are more likely in line with the views of most voters. (This same situation exists for the DNC and GOP now of course, but they have the benefit of being in control already.) So I guess my question is this: How do you strike a balance between being principled enough to remain true to the goals of the party, and flexible enough to actually win the popular support needed to achieve those goals?
True. But the Constitution as it stands today does limit state governments (see Amendment XIV, Section 1).
Arnold won because Gray Davis, the governor being recalled, was a do nothing moron who ate campaign funds and passed favors in return. He was widely perceived as an absolute loser who did nothing but sit on his hands, especially during the power crisis, like Bush Sr doing nothing about the economy but ten times the bad vibes.
Anyone could have done a better job than Gray Davis. Arnie's name helped him stand out in a crowded field. The most "popular" other two candidates were the lt. governor, perceived as a typical lt governor / vice president do-nothing incompetent party hack without an original thought in his brain, and a right wing republican completely out of touch with the electorate. Arnie is so moderate that I would not have been surprised to see him switch to the Democrat party, at least until he sold his soul at the Republican convention for a candidate (Bush) farther from his own opinions than the opposition (Kerry).
Infuriate left and right
Remember the last Americans taking off from the US Embassy in South Vietnam? What would you have done differently than Nixon if you were elected in 1972?
Michael,
Please add my voice to those around here asking the question:
What is the implementation plan?
This is one of the most often asked questions I get as a Libertarian. Many people who are already convinced by our positions stop short of supporting us because though they can see where we want to go, they can't see how we're going to get there once we are in elected positions.
What is the transition plan? What short term side effects do you expect when enacting the Libertarian agenda? how will you prevent, diminish or react to those.
I've often said that I will not vote for a Libertarian candidate that actually has a chance of winning... unless I know what the transition plan is. In my view, the worse thing for the Libertarian movement would be to be elected and be unprepared for the position. The question is not only "are you Libertarian enough to represent me?" but also "do you have a good enough plan, and are you professionally qualified (management experience, for example) to be a good official".
In your opinion, is a National Missile Defense system folly, as some would say, and an example of corporate welfare through defense contracts, or is it "proven enough" to be a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer funds as a necessary component of the defense of the nation?
No Laughing Allowed!
I've often wondered why third parties always start by running a candidate for president instead of trying to gain power at the state and congressional level first. This would have many benefits, not the least of which being that you would stand a much better chance of actually winning something. Even if you "only" won one Senate seat, you would have tremendous power by deciding who to caucus with (witness the Jefferds defection.) The house is a bit tougher, but 8-10 Representatives from a third party could make a huge difference.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
My question: "How do you expect to lead the US when you have a surname that makes you sound like a villain from a Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon?"
You must think in Russian.
I'll thank you to leave your love life out of this political discussion.
The goal of the 14th amentment was/is noble and good. (give blacks equal status under the law) The law of unintended consequences struck, and those consequences have been many and mostly bad.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
As I see it, the politicians who are able to make large changes have a lot of political power...in other words they have compromised many times and have a lot of people who owe them.
If you are elected president, how will you go about making changes?
The US is a wealthy country that has collected itself a good number of serious enemies for that reason and many others. 9/11 taught us that in a serious way. Many people, including myself, feel that we are not in a position to passively defend ourselves against terrorists. We've done too many things, actively and passively, for us to even consider returning to our isolationist roots before the first and second world wars. Besides, the rest of the world has changed too; people who would harm Americans have become more and more powerful over the decades. Unless we take preemptive action to prevent future terrorism, the terrorists will be back.
Of the major political parties, the Libertarian party is generally my favorite. Libertarianism lacks the "tax me to death and give my money to those who won't work" attitude of the Democrats, and it lacks the bigotry and "morality police" attitudes of the Republicans. Libertarians also don't take action to squelch technological and scientific advancement. But the one place where I have to give the Republicans credit is that they don't wimp out when it comes to defending the country militarily. All political parties have been accused of "selling out to the enemy", but in my opinion, this is least likely to be true for the Republicans. [1]
My question to you is this: Given the Libertarian history of having an isolationist attitude, what is your policy on defending the country? Do you intend to cut back military and hope the problem goes away (which it won't), or do you intend to maintain or increase our strength so that when the enemy comes, and they will, we are able not just to defend ourselves on our own soil, but are ready to go to where the enemy is and neutralize them preemptively?
A corollary to my first question: What is your policy regarding our dependence on outsiders for energy? For far too long, we have been beholden to the middle-east for the bulk of our energy supply. Furthermore, oil cartels have politically interfered with development of alternative fuel sources for a very long time. I don't believe that global warming is caused primarily by burning of fossil fuels, but I do believe it's important that the US get away from fossil fuels so that we can become self-sufficient. While Hydrogen fuel cells for cars are a long way off, we already have things like ethanol, biodiesel, and other means of generating fuels that can be transported by the existing infrastructure and used in existing vehicles. [2] Do you have any plans for averting a future energy crisis by disconnecting us from those that could ruin our economy by cutting off our fuel supply at any moment?
Foot note [1]: Aside: As someone who strongly respects both Islam and Christianity, I would rather be under the tyranny of those who pretend to be Christians here in the US than be under the tyranny of those who pretend to be Muslims in the middle east.
Foot note [2]: The government pays many farmers NOT to grow as much food as they possibly could. This is stupid. If the government is going to interfere AT ALL, the surplus food should be bought and turned into fuel.
I think you're probably intelligent enough to realize that there's an extremely low probability you'll actually be elected President of the United States this year. Do you think the Libertarian Party will ever win a Presidential Election? If so, what's the plan for getting there, and how long do you think it will take?
11*43+456^2
Mr. Badnarik, as much as I (an active opponent and protestor of the WTO) agree wholeheartedly with your stated opposition to the World Trade Organization and its corporatist ilk, I have yet to hear a clear stance. If elected president, what steps would you take regarding America's membership in WTO? (And other supposedly "free-trade" organizations) If elected president, what steps would you take to eliminate tariffs and other statist attacks on commerce?
For Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate: I saw you debating David Cobb, the Green Party candidate, on C-Span recently. Surprisingly, you and he seemed to agree on so many goals and differed only in the approaches you'd each take to achieving the same goals. Why do you think Libertarian policies would be better for the environment than Green Party policies? Do you think Libertarian policies would be better for all the Green Party goals?
The Republican party was started as a third party. It eventually killed off and replaced the whigs...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
So basically, the way I read this is that the Libertarian Party opposes monopolies, but thinks that if they just turn their head the problem will go away. This follows a consistent pattern in the Libertarian philosophy - all monopolies are caused by the government and if we get rid of the government interference, there will be no problem. Which is absolute rubbish - An unregulated market won't result in a free market any more than a lawless society will result in free society. The reason is that the threat to freedom isn't just our government in particular, but all insufficiently checked power structures in general. When the church was large and unchecked it became corrupt and liberty was lost. When feudal lords became too powerful to be checked, or colluded amongst themselves, liberty was lost. When the corporate "communistic" states were left unchecked liberty was lost. And here in the US, when large corporations were left unchecked, they treated their workers as near slaves, and liberty was lost. Throughout the entire history of mankind, every unchecked source of power eventually became corrupted and attacked the freedoms of mankind. The entire reasoning behind a democratic or republican style of government is that we decide it is better to give authority to a body which we have some control over, and which will respect and protect our freedoms, than to have an authority imposed upon us which cares only for its own interests.
The market is the same. Collusion among oligopolies has nothing to do with government interference, and yet it restrict the freedom of the market. There are certain markets (utilities, etc) which by their very nature tend to monopolistic situations. And there are occasions where a company is simply lucky and talented enought that it monopolizes a market on its own. These situations occur naturally, and once a monopoly has been created, it is exceedingly difficult for potential competitors to break it, just like it is hard for peasants to overthrow a king - because all the cards are in the king's hand.
I strongly sympathize with the Libertarian desire to decrease the government's impact, and want to be a supporter of theirs. I don't like the socialistic leaning policies that the Democrats are pushing. I don't like the way the Republicans have been pushing through "National Security" bills that are eroding our rights (and which the Democrats are too spineless to oppose). I don't like the way
Over time, the American Government has created many commisions, departments, and branches beyond the scope of its original intent. Which areas do you think have gone beyond what government should handle, and which areas do you think provide a valuable public service and should be made as a more formal addition to the original intent?
Well, the UN has its flaws to say the least, but for small countries, it is hard to establish fora to be heard, and the UN is perceived to be the only such forum we have.
How do you plan to improve international relations among bigger and smaller countries?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
That's what the electoral college brings to rural states. That was significant back when the union was much smaller, both in terms of states and in terms of population. Nowdays... Wyoming has 1 or 3 votes, versus California's 54 or 52. Wyoming is still ignored.
I'm not convinced things wouldn't be better under a direct vote system, though granted I haven't ran any numbers or anything. All the rural voters would together represent a larger population than they do split, and the rural parts of urban states would not be irrelevent as they are now, adding to that block of voters.
The enemies of Democracy are
that its ensuring and not insuring.
How does it feel to run, and do your best, and know that you're barely on anybody's radar even if you are actually the most qualified candidate running?
It seems that the much-touted two-party system can leave much to be desired when both parties have some serious flaws.
People making less than 10K/yr don't pay ANY federal income tax; check your tax tables with your form 1040. Of course, no matter how little you earn, you are robbed by the government in other ways, including a pyramid scheme the government calls "Social Security." Oh, the irony. Security, indeed.
I would ask Mr. Badnarik how he plans to phase out Social Insecurity. People will riot if you take it away immediately, but we can't keep going like this; the pyramid has to collapse some time. I fear that my generation will be called "The Greatest Generation" like those who fought in WWII, but our sacrifice will be to be the first ones to receive no SS after paying into it for a lifetime. We were robbed our entire working lives, and then left to fend for ourselves so that our children and grandchildren could regain control over their own damn money. The sacrifice is coming; will we make it, or leave it for our children?
Tort reform. The single-most important reason that John Edwards is unfit to be the vice-president. He made his money by dubious class-action lawsuits and do you know who eventually pays for that? Yep, you and me through increased premiums and prices brought on by unnecessary care that gets authorized in a "CYA" mode, higher malpractice insurance, and so on.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Most people intelligent people I know do not adhere strictly to either the democrat's or republican's policies, but rather their views fit in better with either a smaller party, or none of the above.
However, when it comes to voting it is only one of those two parties who usually receive any significant votes. That said, most libertarians I know vote republican.
At first glance, the reason for this is fairly obvious. Republicans say that they will keep government out of your life by reducing taxes, and keeping the government smaller. What I have not gotten answered by my libertarian friends is why companies are necessarily so much better.
That is, I think it's a given someone in the end is going to try to run our lives. Be it RIAA, MPAA, doubleclick, Time-Warner, etc. While a free market is a great idea, we seem to have difficulty in its actual practice. Our media outlets have shrunk, only a few companies control needed supplies (e.g. ADM, who was found guilty in price-fixing), etc.
If neither companies nor government can be completely trusted, it seems better to me to instead try to balance the two. How does this fit in the the libertarian view point (i.e. companies and government should be of equal mass)? If freedom is the focus of your party, then it is important to specify from whom. This may give a more liberal-bent to the libertarian party as well.
While I'm sure you rather people vote for you, if someone were bent on voting republican or democrat, but with libertarian values, do you think this should influence the decision?
These ideological presidents did not balance the budget.
First, let my congratulate you on being the first 2004 Presidential candidate to be interviewed on Slashdot. I have been a Libertarian for perhaps 5 or so years now, and this will be the first Presidential election I will be old enough to vote in (missed the last by a hair). Now, I am in full agreement with most of the Libertarian National Campaign Platform, but I am most concerned with its positions on the War on Terrorists and our border policy. In my opinion, unilateral disengangment from the War on Terrorists will damage our strong alliances among the free nations who support freedom and democracy, as well as making us more vulnerable to terrorist attack. The terrorists have made it clear time and time again that they will not be satisfied if we give in to their demands (Spain), and that their goal is to destroy freedom worldwide, implementing an Islamist theocratic empire. The Libertarian Party cannot afford to be seen as an appeaser in World War IV, when the most important issue on the minds of voters is the War on Terrorists (ie World War IV). How do you propose to defend the United States' interests when the party currently shows no desire to defend them beyond our borders? Regarding our borders, will you mobilize the National Guard to defend the nation against illegeal aliens and terrorist infiltrators, or will you pursue a free border policy that is even worse than President Bush's illegal alien amnesty plan? I will be voting Libertarian for US Senate and House, but unless you are able to convince this Libertarian you are credible as Commander-in-Chief, I will be forced to vote for President Bush.
Sincerely, MSTCrow5429
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
If elected, how would you deal with a Senate and House of Representatives made up almost entirely of Republicans and Democrats? Wouldn't that put a major crimp in the sweeping changes promised as the US's first Libertarian president?
Snazzier than a Three-Piece Suit: http://kf.rainydaycommunications.net/
I wouldn't.
There's a strange phenomenon in this country: People living to or above their means. My husband recently got a new job and his income almost doubled and yet somehow we still don't seem to have any money...
It's not just us. The average American is up to his;her ears in credit card debt. Whatever we have, it's never enough. I always say to myself, "If I had a million dollars I would...." and a lot of it involves charity. But I don't have a million dollars and from what I see, most millionaires don't contribute to charity to the extent I dream about.
I hate to say it, but as a whole, AMericans are selfish.
There do remain several good arguments for taking charities out of the heands of government, though, not the least of which is that they suck at it. They give it to the wrong people for the wrong amount of time and they punish people who try ot better themselves and get off the government assistance. Even though I strongly believe that far less money will go to charity if we stopped letting the government take it directly, I also believe that we would need less if charities were put into the hands of people with the desire to help people help themselves rather than just throw money at people.
According to your web site "The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. "
Please explain what is meant by the terms "free and open." Does this mean open borders? Do you support doing away with all limits on imigration?
Insert Generic Sig Here:
What do you think about the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the flagrant violation of the 10th Amendment that has set a precedence for unconstitutional laws and wars?
Some libertarians beleive that they should have the right to own nuclear weapons, just like *some* consertives beleive this. Also, just like *some* liberals beleive that we should have 90+% tax rates. Or *some* other consertives beleive that we should turn Iraq into a glass parking lot. If you listen to what the whackos say in any party you can never have a political viewpoint you beleive in.
If I had to place my ideals under a specific label (though I hate political labels which are often used to avoid thinking about issues), I'd have to say I'm a progressive libertarian.
I'm with Mr. Badnarik 100% on most of his core stances (kudos too for recognizing state's rights in the drug war too). I'm a vehement believer in The Constitution (not that there aren't parts I don't agree with; I'd just prefer we obey it as written OR amend it - not pretend it says something else.) However, I'm curious about your stances on several things.
A stable dollarYou state, "The Constitution delegates the power to coin money to Congress. As your president, I'll insist that they discharge that responsibility instead of fobbing the job off on an external entity like the Fed. And I'll veto legislation for any such operation that doesn't meet the true test of money: It is either made of gold or silver, or can be redeemed for a fixed amount of gold or silver."
I take issue with the last sentence.
Money doesn't need to be redeemable for something in finite supply (in fact, as population increases, that's a bad thing) to be stable, it simply needs to be equally hard to earn. Tying the value of a dollar to a consumer price index or, even better, the population might be wiser.
It is also important to note that The Fed is not the external entity coining money. When banks and other lending institutions practice fractional reserve lending, they reduce the value of the dollar. [An explanation of this phenomenon can be found at http://www.progress.org/reform21.htm]
Would you propose or stand behind legislation to eliminate fractional reserve lending?
The social safety netCentralized government programs have the net effect of making people less personally responsible. I think a lot of resistance to libertarianism comes from the feeling that they want to cut all the safety nets before something (private charity, LVT, whatever) is in place. Regardless, it would be disastrous to move immediately from a society in which the government has taken responsibility away from citizens to one where everyone is fully responsible for himself or herself.
What are your plans for migrating from one model to the other?
Government funding The Federal Income Tax is clearly constitutional (yeah, I know Ohio wasn't a state until 1953), but it still is a tax on labor, which is deleterious. The same goes for a sales tax. Other ways to fund the valid functions of government include a "head tax" and recovery of the rental value of things such as land, the electromagnetic spectrum, pollution permits, etc.New Zealand and Australia are experimenting with LVT while Iceland is experimenting with pollition permits and citizen's dividends. I think there is room to be U.S. to be more progressive and foster more equality while adhering to the basic tenets of libertarianism.
What is your plan for funding government while remaining consistent to core libertarian principles?
Intellectual propertyClearly patents and copyrights are government-granted and, therefore privileges but are necessary for a technologically advanced society. It seems that lately things have been getting out of hand leading in part to some of the problems you site as issues (such as the cost of medicine.)
What are your feelings on the current length of intellectual property claims and the veritable "patent mill" that the USPTO has become? How would steer intellectual property back toward the constitutional concept of "for a limited time?"
I'm a Registered Libertarian. I see the party split into several different types of libertarians: Gun Nuts and 'Get off mah land' types, people that just want government reduced to making roads and protecting life and property, Drug enthusiasts, and prostitution and polygamy enthusiasts. Have you noticed this disparity and how do you think it will affect our ability to gain more widespread credibility?
Can these groups ever ally, so that the US sees a real 2nd Party, or are we forever to witness a futile race for 3d place?
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Have you or any other in the Libertarian party with significant influence ever seriously considered the possibility that the failure to obtain significant positions of influence in the government after 33 years stems from the possibility that your party's platform consists of a utopian theory instead of solid implementation?
We are all familiar with the adage, "The devil is in the details." Put in simplest terms, have you ever really and *honestly* evaluated just how many "devils" you have lurking in your desired platform?
I wish I could vote Libertarian but I am always left with the (negative) impression that your party is more about finding intellectual fellowship instead of supporting workable solutions; about having a blind love affair with the "what should be" while ignoring the implementation realities of the "what is."
"It isn't necessary to completely suppress the news; it is sufficient to delay the news until it no longer matters." - N
Please pick whichever questions you want from my short critique of right leaning Libertarian philosophy. I have only read a bit of Rand, and am still learning about her philsophy, but I have quite a few concerns about it.
I am what one might call a libertarian leftist, in the sense that I believe in strong liberty but also that the state should be strong enough to provide at minimum an equal opportunity for it's citizens, if not, preferrrably, equal outcomes for roughly equivalent work(i.e. if two people work really hard, they should get rewarded, if they are both lazy, they shouldn't get that much, etc.).
I have some questions regarding right leaning libertarian philosopy. I have bought a few books, such as "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal." What I have read in these books disturbs me. I read the writings of Rand, and I see someone who with almost religious zeal believes that rational thought can solve all of our problems, and that a just economy can be created only by deriving it from a philosophical foundation that includes man as a single entity as it's central focus. (I use the word "religious" on purpose, since it is impossible to deductively prove that deductive reasoning will yield the correct answers to all of life's problems, or even to the problem of creating a philosophy that will guide us towards a more just society. Believing that deductive reasoning alone will give one the anser to social problems is partially a matter of faith in that approach.) To explain why she takes the approach of having man as the center of her philosophy, rather than men (in the collective sense), she uses a loose analogy in the first chapter, saying that trying to build a society without using the concept of man at it's center is like trying to have a theory of the universe that doesn't talk about, or even attempt to identify individual stars, planets, celestial bodies, etc. Now, that makes sense, but I'm not so sure that the analogy is very useful. For example, do we need to have a theory of how neurons work, and a complete model of the brain, built from the atomic level on up, before we can attempt to comprehend things like personality, theory of the mind, etc? If not, then why would we need to have an economic theory that is built on the idea of human beings as discrete entities in order to build a just economic system? After all, we don't need to understand every detail of how neurons work to have a practical theory of the mind. If, on the other hand, you do insist that we need such a detailed model of the brain in order to understand the mind, then why shouldn't we extend Rand's analogy inward, and take it to it's rational conclusion that we shouldn't be talking about man, until we understand the brain, and shouldn't talk about the brain until we understand neurons, and therefore, shouldn't talk about neurons until we understand particle physics in it's entirely, and so on, and so forth. Why does Rand draw the line with man as the discrete element? How does she expect to gain insight into man, as a discrete entity, if she doesn't take her own advice and study all of the discrete elements of man?
The part that I find disturbing about Rand, is her lack of attention to empirical analysis. A theory can be wonderfully symetric and complete, beautiful to behold, etc., and when brought out into the real world, fail miserably to explain, predict, and guide. The reason is that theories can fail to highlight the important concepts, and as a result, distort our understanding of how the world works. I notice this quite a bit with Rand, and many libertarian forms of argument, they love to abstract problems into very contrived situations, pointing out only the things they believe are important, leaving invisible the parts that are inconvenient or that contradict their theory, and then, at least on the surface, they have an argument that is strong and logically satisfying. For example, when describing the process of negotiations between two parties, Rand says something to the effect of, 'If both partn
Remember that since Badnarik won't win, voting for him is voting for the favored incumbent. If you want change, vote for Kerry. If you want to roll over in a neverending Bush nightmare, vote for him, or throw your vote away on Badnarik. You'll do a lot more good for Badnarik, Libertarians, and the country, if you learn what the Libertarians will do with your donation, then send one to them. Voting isn't a sacrament or spell that must be cast with perfect adherence to the supposed question "who do you want to be President?". It's an action with a result, even on a statistical basis - the result must be considered before acting, not the ideology behind the action.
--
make install -not war
"I compare [open source vs. non-open source] to science vs. witchcraft." linus
Why are you so insistant at maintaining property rights in things like land that are relatively concentrated while diluting the widely held "asset" of US citizenship via and open borders policy? How can you say citizenship/permanent residency isn't a valuable asset when the moment a H-1b holder gets his visa, he can expect extra money if his family is in the dowry system? How can you imagine that the property rights of existing US citizens you hold so dear would be maintained under an open borders policy? Immigrants played a major role in the new deal and typically vote democratic. Why don't you expect that would repeat itself?
How would you suggest that the dependance on foreign oil be dealt with? And what would you see as incentives for US companies to bring more efficient products (trucks and cars) to the market place?
If you could only vote for Bush or Kerry, which would you select, and why? Put another way, does Bush or Kerry more closely match the Libertarian vision?
Excuse me, but Liberians can't be President of the United States.
If he's running for the Liberian presidency, that's a different matter. In that case, I wish him all the best.
In such an event, what is his plan for restoring order to Liberia?
Sorry, he is a disgrace to the Libertarian party. With his views on 9-11, the JFK murder, and other items it is clear he buys into too many conspiracy theories.
Really, go read up on this nut job. Tin Foil, this guy has a body suit.
going Anon simply because its true.
Unfortunately, the concept of 'natural rights' is not clearly laid out on the Libertarian Party website, www.lp.org. Your reasonable response to my somewhat snide comment gave me the inclination to dig deaper, and it appears that the basic set of rights recognized are life, liberty, and justly acquired property. These rights, and the rights implied by these rights, such as the right to be free of pollution on one's own property are an admirable base to form a platform on.
However, the question in my mind is, how do we get there from here? Simply doing away with all government regulation would make it impossible to enforce these rights, as it stands now. Too much of the world's wealth and property has been, in my mind, unjustly acquired. Even if justly acquired by someone, it is likely to have originally just been stolen from those using it communally. If I by a stolen bicycle unkowingly, I have acquired the bicycle justly, but there is no justice for the original owner. With the great imbalance in wealth we have, how can the average person become vested in an 'ownership system?' The vast majority of people in the world don't own property, have they no recourse if forced to breath polluted air?
I note with some pleasure that the Libertarian Party platform advocates returning lands stolen from Native Americans. How can we go about doing so without unjustly depriving those that legitimately purchased those lands? Where will all us non-natives live? They did at one time own all of what is now the USA.
This boils down to the problem that Marx described as 'primitive accumulation,' and no ideology, as yet, has come up with a fair and just system for overcoming the problem of where wealth and property came from originally.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You're going to need to be more specific about what you mean by false security.
We have a large military that protects us from foreign invasion.
We have a large police force which protects us domestically for the most part.
We have social services that support poor people, which directly gives them security, which indirectly gives nonpoor people security since they are less likely to resort to crime to get by.
Free education gives people who wouldn't be able to afford private schooling a much better chance of succeeding, which has many benefits, including helping to control communicable disease, and reducing crime.
There is an undeniable amount of real security and benefit the big government gives us. I think you need to be specific in referring to the sorts of false forms of security that are more imposing then useful, like being able to tap all our phone calls, collect data on all our transactions, surveil us constantly, sieze our assets with little reason, etc.
A platform built on the foundatain of "We're not really getting any security from our government, you are deceived to think so" to me just seems to be totally not paying attention to reality. The only way I can imagine somebody actually buying such a line is if they've never actually been exposed to any real insecurity, most likely because their government has pampered them so successfully.
It is said that a stateless Communist society, the pinnacle of Marxist philosophy, cannot arise in reality because it would require its citizens to become universally enlightened to Marxist thought and social consciousness before the system would ever become anything but anarchistic chaos, or authoritarian despotism.
Isn't that also a fair appraisal of what a Libertarian society would require of its citizens? If the citizens of Libertarianland are unable to recognize their own englightened self-interest, won't that make the pure Libertarian society as much a pipe dream as the pure Communist society?
Edith Keeler Must Die
The problem is, most polarizing interests aren't geographical
I disagree. Ever been to a black neighborhood in a major city? Or maybe to a certain part of midtown Atlanta dubbed the "gayborhood"? Most middle classed people live in the subburbs, not the ghetto. The list goes on and on. I am first to admit the electoral college may not be the best way to handle things, but I do think there are advantages to the geographical approach, basically FORCING campaigns to focus attention on more regions and the various people who inhabit those regions.
The minority viewpoint, in many cases, is in the minority for a reason.
There's a difference between being a minority viewpoint, and being a minority. The things you listed are things that come from personality quirks. Do you honestly think all people in a big farm community would think we should be protected from UFO's (ok, maybe not the best example depending how redneck they are), or that all people in the ghetto would want free chocolate cake for everyone named Bob? The advantage of a geographical approach is indeed the fact that it allows you to capture minority views of import, such as public works improvements, education, poverty, all that good stuff, while still not focusing on such a small group that it gives undue weight to really crazy ideals.
arbitrarily giving extra weight to the minorirty views, whether proven or not, is foolish.
Again, I disagree. A full-on mob mentality is generally going to stomp on the minorities for its own benefit unless it's forced head-on to deal with their concerns. I contend that encouraging a system where special consideration is NOT given to minority rights is foolish.
The primary reason the American government is able to engage in such gross deficit spending is due to FDR's elimination of the gold standard as the basis for our currency. If elected, what, if anything, would be your policy as to reigning in the Federal Reserve and eventually restoring the gold standard in an effort to restore fiscal responsibility and once more provide America with a sound economic foundation?
When you join the LP they make you sign a pledge thing stating that you dont agree with the initiation of force or something. Is'nt this pretty weird making people sign a pledge stating you dont approve of the initiation of force by forcing them to sign a pledge stating that they are against forcing people to do things?
Secondly, what about Third World countries who may make up to 20% of their budget from tariffs and foreign aid? Can you build new, profitable markets where you can't afford to build roads?
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
Hi Candidate Badnarik :
What is your position on the USA's use of "surrogate militaries" to conduct our wars ?
Does your position differ whether such militaries are either private (so called "security consultant" mercenaries), or themselves sovereign in nature (as in Israeli operatives conducting actions at US direction) ?
Does your position differ whether such surrogate projects are established to either address domestically unpopular conflicts (protecting US oil company assets from piracy), or to simply supplement US forces already engaged themselves ?
What future role (if any) do you see for the US's use of such surrogate military arrangements ? Can you describe any particular opporunities and/or challenges that face us in choosing this route to addressing America's future military manpower needs for our continuing international adventurisms ?
Thanks for your thoughts !!
Billy Goodbot
Teaneck, NJ, USA
Mr. Badnarik,
I have several questions.
(1) As a Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-very-briefly-Soc ialist-turned-Libertarian-turned-libertarian (all changes occurring throughout my undergrad years as a Comp. Sci major, Economics minor), in the 2 years since I've become a convert to the libertarian mindset, (specifically to Milton Friedman's very-rational, very-reasonable brand of libertarianism - I am a diehard Friedmanite), I've seriously considered starting a Libertarian organization at my university. But I am faced with the realization of a few problems:
1) It is difficult for me personally in good conscience to found a big-'L' Libertarian organization which would promote the Libertarian Party, a party which I have always seen as having at least 2 distinct problems:
A) The "Ralph Nader Effect." No matter the few advances the LP makes, it is not going to be very effective. Nor has the LP ever been effective; the highest popular vote for any LP Presidential was for Ed Crane, back in 1980 -- and he received about 1% of the popular vote. Even Socialist Eugene Debs did better during the 1912 and 1920 elections (6% and 3.2%, respectively, the latter of which he received while sitting in jail).
Love it or hate it, the LP is a 3rd party, and no 3rd party in the 228 year history of the U.S. has ever had any real significance. Ross Perot ran as an independent, once winning some 18% or so of the popular vote. But he was pulling votes from the left and right, so he wasn't blamed for "stealing" votes from the GOP or Dems (as though by rightful barony they should be given those votes).
And where is Perot now? Sitting on an oil rig somewhere, surely still listening for that "giant sucking sound" he thought he heard with those big ears.
B) The extremism and Randian doggedness to stick to principle. Love it or hate it, politics in a democracy is necessarily a game of compromise, because the votes of a diverse set of individuals remove the extrema of points from most actions in government. The LP takes a no-compromise, highly-principled stance on all its issues; this makes working with the LP in a practical sense rather difficult. This problem, I believe, contributes strongly back to problem A.
2) The LP is filled with nuts, and I'm sorry, but to be bluntly honest, you fit that stereotype like an expensive suit. Who else but a big-'L' Libertarian would be caught dead saying they would blow up the U.N. building on their eighth day of office, or avoiding registering for a driver's license?
Look, I agree with your principles 100%. I agree we should keep the U.N. at arm's-length and not let them make any decisions whatsoever about the direction of this country. And I agree that driver's licenses shouldn't require a fingerprint or SSN; nor should they have a barcode or really any other identifying info besides one's name, DOB, and license expiration date. But let's be serious -- these things exist whether we like them or not, and unless you take the issue to the courts, they are not going to be changed anytime soon, and childish daydreams of blowing up the property of those we don't like and running from the cops don't help your case in the eyes of most of the public.
Hence, do I want to start an organization promoting people whose intentions and general views I sympathize with very strongly, but the principles of which I realize cannot reasonably be fulfilled without compromise? Why, as a rational user of my time, should I waste my time starting such an organization in that case?
Mr. Badnarik, it is in my view that organizations such as the Cato Institute and The Economist magazine, and Reason magazine do a vastly-superior job of promoting libertarian philosophy than the LP ever has. Why should I start an organization which p
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I call BS.
Look up some statistics on charitable donations one day. One thing you'll note is that the percentage of people who donate out of the general public remains about the same across all income levels. All that changes is the amount donated, and even that scales roughly at the same rate as income level.
Ergo, people who are charitable are charitable regardless of what they're making and what they have. Peope who aren't, aren't. They can always find some other area where they need the money.
Hell, you might be twice as likely to donate with lower taxes, but twice nothing is still zip.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
> The minority, in a sense, DOES need more power per person
intersting idea... So i should get a larger share of the vote if I am gay or black?
In a democracy everyone's vote must count the same, the interests of minorities need to be protected through a constitution and a legal system to back it up...
Besides, the idea that the electoral college protects the country-population is just rubbish. Instead it aids the interst of states that are borderline, which is a pretty arbitrary criterium...
Does A union have a right to exist, i.e. 'the right to assemble peaceably' and compel a company to talk, or does the corp's rights include the right to ignore a union's claim to legally represent a labor pool?
Creighton
From the LP platform, "Families and Children:"
"The Principle...However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood."
Combined with the section of the LP platform entitled "Sexual Rights:"
"The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity."
Do you support this horrible and ridiculous plank which essentially would legalize child prostitution and statutory rape?
Where to start. Ive been reading these 'libertarian' tracts and this is as far as I can go.
The idea that the Government is a barrier to a more just society, delivered by CHARITIES is amazing.
Where do you think the middle class came from? REGULATION! Regulation of the market brought the work week to 40hrs. Minimum wage keeps people fed. Labour Law keeps people from being hacked-to-pieces in factories.
For every middle class libertarian, who thinks theyd be *better* off with more a liberal economy consider this: Where did you goto school? Who paid for it? On who's roads do you drive to the suburbs on? Who keeps the water, air and land clean? Who picks up trash? Who does the policing? Fire? Who mediates disputes?
Taxes are what you pay for a middle class. No taxes -- no market regulation -- and you get two things: The very rich and the Very Poor.
Ive got news for you Mr. Indulged Middle Classman: When you finally give the robber-barrons back their free-market, they will use it to put *YOUR FAMILY* in the poor house. Dont agree? Think you are so specially talented that you will rise above, you'll "out-compete" the others? Money is a magnet. Unless you think *your* willing to bet that *your* family will end up the Financial Monarchy (you know, the small group of the beyond wealthy who will come to own everything) you might want to start considering what you are wishing for.
McCarthy is to blame... GOD you USAians are out of your minds.
Given Bush's track record regarding privacy and personal freedom issues, do you feel that the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party are beginning to distance themselves even further from each other (in terms of the simplistic "left" and "right" terminology)?
-Vendal Thornheart
You know, the Roman Empire had no income tax. It had no poor or destitute either... oh wait, it did.
Yes, thats why the middle ages were such an enlightened time. Low taxes, everyone gave tons to charity, and noone fell through the cracks.
Whats that? They didn't? People died in the streets of major cities on a regular basis? Then I must have meant the Renaisance. Surely this remarkable period brought that about.
What? Still problems? Ok, the industrial revolution then. Surely with the technological increases of the time it was esasy to provide for all from charity!
Wait, that period had record levels of poverty where people had to labor 16 hour days to live hand to mouth? Damn.
The social projects of today aren't perfect, and can definitely be improved upon. But they're one hell of a lot better than what we had before- you don't see people dieing of starvation on the streets in this day and age. They work a hell of a lot better than the previous 1900 years of relying on charity.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
If the Libertarian party wants people's success in life to be due to their own wits and hard work, shouldn't it be supporting a free education, and supporting the estate tax?
I'm not sure that making sure you take everything away from someones family when they die is in any way considered to help elevate the poor. Ideally the poor should be able to build themselves up over many generations, until they are not poor... furthermore why punish those that do succeed?
I am curious though as to the answer on education. I ffel like that needs to be a fundamentially supported thing, that everyone has good acces to education, that people pay for that. I don't mind paying school taxes even though I have no kids as I realize what a mess things would be without a well-education populace. Of course I also believe we should have voucers so it isn't nessicarily the public actually providing the education. Indeed, I'm not so sure public schools are a good idea, I'd rather see the government just fund education and not run the institutions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How would you deal with the income tax?
Flat Tax?
Progressive Tax?
Eliminate it alltogether and go to something else entirely (like a sales tax)?
And most importantly, why would you choose that?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
HOw is this different then just a few people in "Swing" states deciding? Why is it fair to states like NY or California if a bunch of people in iowa decide who the president is.
The truth is that people in urban areas pay out more in taxes then they get back while people in rural states receive more tax money then they pay out. Why should the leeches get to set policy?
evil is as evil does
Give it a read to find out why.
Did you know that the average US citizen is forced to pay nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government
I'd love to hear what orifice you pulled this statistic from.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Can the Libertarians build a temporary or permanent coalition with other parties or groups to get a third or more of the popular vote?
For example, make a deal with the Constitution Party for a joint Presidential election(s) where the Libs & Constitionalist provide a Presidential Candidate where one would become the Vice Presidential Candidate. The Vice selection could rotate by election, combined vote, and/or other method.
I think this is the only chance the Libs have.
Please build a coalition.
*****HUMER WARNING*******
;)
The constitution forbids cruel *and* unusual punishments.
This means that to be unconstitutional, the punishment has to meet both standards. If the punishment is done to all inmates of the crime classification, it's not unusual, so even though it's cruel, it's allowed. And unusual punishments, if they're not cruel, are also allowed. What's the standard? Well, if the convict agrees to it in exchange for a reduction in the standard punishment, it's not so cruel (like chemical sterilization for a child-molester. The guy's agreed to it!!! Let it happen!).
I've seen constitutional arguments based on weaker interpretations.
I don't read AC A human right
Jesse Ventura won due to the incredible amount of media buzz and fame status, not due to having a solid platform or issues. Fame brought him victory, and against his frail opponents he would have won regardless of what party he was in. No one else could generate the buzz he did. It's true more often that not that people will vote for the person that they see the most of more than the person who stands by any given issue.
The Republicans could have been considered a third party, except that the system had not yet solidified against the notion of third parties. Stumping in those days meant just that: going to locations, standing on a tree stump or soapbox, and preaching to people around you. Now of days, press costs millions of dollars for candidates, and a majority of that funding comes from the Government (who only supports parties that are already established with 5% or greater support, which again can only be garnered by press), and PACs (who only contribute to parties that they think will have a chance of winning, they don't invest in the future of a political party when they can influence the ones currently in power and get direct results).
Many parties are indeed one issue horses, but there are some who appeal to entirely different spectrums and are just as ignored. For instance, both the Democrats and Republicans are staunchly in favor of the economic system of Capitalism. There are third parties that appeal to any one of dozens of different possible economic systems, but they are ignored due to the system in place today. One could say that the dual party system has made the issue of Capitalism transparent to people: people don't even realize that the concept of Capitalism is something that can be debated! And it's because both of the major parties agree with it. It's become a forced non-issue, and that's sad. Everything, EVERYTHING should be open to debate.
The Libertarian candidate has an extreme difficulty in winning because of the reasons stated above. The examples posed in the parent argument are exceptions to the rule, and cannot be used to claim that third parties need to try harder. The problem is more complex than that.
As for answers, I have none. The third party restriction is based partly in a rigid system that has firmly established itself (the government funding of parties), partly in the nature of capitalism (PACs by the nature of their goals will by nature not donate to third parties), and partly in the nature of humanity (humans tend to simplify issues into Dualities - that is, conflicts between two forces. Many people simply do not want to think in more complex terms than that.)
-Vendal Thornheart
That's the most concise analysis of N. Korea I've read since this whole issue hit the mainstream.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
"In 2002 alone, there were 102,000,000 emergency department visits by patients as a result of drugs."
Yes, but those aren't the drugs the war on drugs is looking for. The really dangerous stuff, they turn a blind eye to. The war on drugs is all about arresting people for pot. Too dangerous to go after people who deal with dangerous drugs, both politically and otherwise.
Libertarian's tend to routinely reject emprical data in favor of deductive, abstract logical reasoning. This makes their philosophy prone to all sorts of miscalculation. There is no rational basis for their approach and they take this approach even when reality contradicets them. You hit the nail on the head and I'm glad someone brought it up early in the discussion, as it's not likely that anyone will even see my question.
p l?sid=12162 3&cid=10240396
I said roughly the same thing, in quite a few more words, in my question:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.
I've just got a few questions, I've been monitoring Badnarik's campaign for a while and there's a few questions I'd like answered - While I'm a huge supporter of Badnarik and Campagna, I'm British and so can't do anything about it in November, but I've been doing my best to spread the word, so I'd relish the oppertunity to ask a few questions to the man himself;
I'm sure how aware you are that the people have considered this election a two-horse race from the very beginning, and I understand how frustrating that must be, so what timeframe would you put on your party's chances for success? If Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry fail to solve the problems that have occurred over the last 4 years then I'm sure many people would begin seriously looking towards a party such as yours, so do you feel that maybe the next election will be the Libertarians' 'big chance'?
Do you feel the fact that both you and Richard Campagna come from minority backgrounds is an advantage or disadvantage to your campaign? How much are you relying on those minorities for your vote, and how many narrow-minded people have you come up against who hold your ancestry against you?
Being British rather than American, I don't have the oppertunity to vote for you in November, but what's your view on the 'special relationship' between our countries, and do you agree that Mr Bush and Mr Blair are maybe a little too close, considering Mr Bush's recent outburst against Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative Party, saying he'd refuse him entry to the White House? Surely the special relationship should rise above personal alliances? How do you see the situation developing should you be elected?
Finally, what drives a man like yourself to go into a situation like this, fighting to be the third man in a two-horse race? Was there one particular event that made you get up and get into politics, or has the drive always been there? It seems a cheesy question, but I'm seriously interested - I'm studying Government and Politics right now, but it must take a lot more drive and determination to do what you're doing - where does that come from?
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Electoral votes are still based on population, so it's not like a thousand farmers are getting the same votes as a million city dwellers, but at least there's actually a chance they might be able to influence things.
Ahhh, but that's exactly what it's like. The numbers are not quite so bad, but my vote counts for far less than does that of somebody in a rural area.
Given that a large chunk of my tax dollars goes to subsidise their lifestyle, how is it unfair that I get at least an equal vote? Those rural states are what I uncharitably refer to as "The Welfare States". They take in more money from taxes than they put out. Without my paycheck, they would not be able to afford phones, nor would thay have the level of access to other modern things like the internet or cell phones that they do. If it were fair, they would get less of a say than I do since I subsidise their existence.
I am willing to give them an equal say even so. It is completely ridiculous that they should have a greater say which they do under the current system.
I voted for Harry Brown in 96 and 00, as well as non-LP Jesse Ventura for Governor in 98 who the libertarians disowned because he thought governement should be involved in transportation. The Libertarian Party is the "party of principle", but governing the masses and winning elections requires pragmatism. (Even Gingrich was way to much of an ideologue for the American public.) No taxes, no drug laws, no gun laws is an awfully tough sell, but moderation might weaken the LP base. Comment on this conundrum.
What can I do personally to help break the two party strangle hold? I'd like other viable party choices; I'd also like to be able to choose a la carte from a list of political ideas/policies. Yet I feel as though my vote would currently be "wasted" if I choose Libertarian, Nader, or something else.
The existing two party system forces one to choose an entire package of ideas/policies. Significant parts of either package are highly unpalatable to me.
The two big parties are also very similar in several important ways, so I feel like I don't really have any good choice. Examples: Both front-running parties currently seem to be in favor of big government and highly confiscatory financial policies (i.e., tax me, spend it in ways over which I have little control). They also seem ready to legislate behavior in ways that are personally invasive. Let's leave aside for the moment their willingness to invade willy nilly into various strategic and weaker nations throughout the world...
I want other choices including:
* smaller federal government
* let me keep my money
* stay out of my social/personal life
* stop invading for oil
What do I do?
As a person who is still undecided in this election and who so far does not want to vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate; what do you have to say that might persuade me to vote for you?
Mr. Badnarik, you went to a state supported university. How might your life have been different if under a Libertarian regime there were no state supported education? How could democracy survive such a hit?
I'm all about 3rd party candidates and the like, as all views should have a voice. Though after reading a good portion of these posts, I think some people need a bit more back ground into libertarian ideology and the internal strife contained in this small upstart party (and I love upstarts :P ).
n dexv11/Chomsky.htm
One thing people need to realize is that while many of the libertarian view points are very much inline with the majority of geeks (ala true anarachisism(not media sensationalist definition( free flow of information))), the libertarians as a party have been not only rather ineffective. The trapa they fall into is often basing views not on fact, but on ideological theory. This isn't to bash the party, but the reality is that there isn't one city, state, or nation on the planet that's run through a true libertarian system.
Many integrate these ideas to varying degrees of success, but still none have embraced the dogmatic outline.
Many libs will point to New Zealand as an example, and while the growth their nation is nothing to scoff at, I recommend reading Noam Chomsky's critque : http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/depts/sml/journal/i
for a bit more in-depth look at the dynamics of that particular example (and also an enlighting view of the disparity caused by a true free market system).
Other great articles that present a myriad of views of left/right (though admititly through leffty eyes) libs are available here : http://world.std.com/~mhuben/leftlib.html
Some good reads by some very intelligent people. And while I realy don't mean to sound bashing in any way, I do think the libs should focus MUCH more on grassroots effots, as less on the unattainable. For now.
Given the difficulty getting past the roadblocks erected by the current two-party system, why did you decide to run as a Libertarian instead of one of the big two? I think you'd have a better chance affecting change from the inside... wear the wool to get in the door, then go Zell Miller on their asses. ;)
SQUEAK, the Death of Rats explained.
I had unfortunately not actually gotten a response the time I attempted to send an e-mail on these questions other than that you had been too busy to consider them, but perhaps you will have a chance to answer them now.
I am rather well read and acquainted with politics, unlike many people my age, and I strongly side with Libertarian ideology. However, as a soon-to-be younger member of the voting block, and planning on continuing education in the field of computer science, I hold certain issues in higher regards perhaps than most of the rest of the public, some of which you do not seem to discuss at length on your website.
In particular, I am curious as to your position on the state of intellectual property (IP) law in the United States. While owners of copyright certainly deserve to earn money from their creations for a limited time (as stated in the Constitution) Of late, we have seen much action by the holders of intellectual property to try to restrict the rights of consumers.
In particular, we have seen owners
- continually extend copyright terms to prevent anything from falling into the public domain, essentially attempting to hold copyrights lasting "forever minus a day" in order to avoid perpetual copyrights not expressly allowed in the constitution (e.g. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and the supreme court case Eldred v. Ashcroft)
- restrict the rights of users to time and space-shift their media by establishing draconic copy protection systems (that are easily removed, save for threats under their pet legislation, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, see http://www.anti-dmca.org/)
- try to generally restrict innovation in computer technology by allowing method and algorithm patents that last for 20 years (e.g. the LZW compression patent), rendering them worthless when they can finally be used.
As president, what would you do regarding IP law? Would you support the Eric Eldred Act (http://www.eldred.cc/) which would require minimal payments to maintain copyright past 50 years and create a central repository of held copyrights? Would you support limiting the ever-growing "rights" of corporations to hold copyrights and patents for these extended periods of time (by only allowing individuals and not corporations to hold copyrights and patents?)?
While I understand that as a libertarian, you are probably for a somewhat more lassez faire economy in terms of the rights of corporations to do more, and be restricted by the government less, but I believe that IP law is a critical flash point between traditional libertarian ideals of business without restrictions and people retaining their rights, so I would like to see which way you would lean on the issue of IP law.
Regardless of your opinion on the issue, I wish you the best of luck in your campaign for the nomination of the Libertarian Party.
Why does the Libertarians Party prefer taxes to borrowing?
Families and Businesses collect money from voluntary exchange of money for labor, goods, and services (revenue), or for money in the future (borrowing). Only government has the ability to collect money involuntarily from taxation. The government actually collects very little voluntary revenue, and should stay out and leave business to the private sector. Why should money from involuntary taxation count toward balancing the budget?
Raising money from selling bonds is voluntary, and is perfectly progressive. Only people who can afford to buy bonds do so, and those who cannot afford to do not. The rich buy most of the bonds, and our children will be more rich than we are, just as we are more rich than our parents were. Taxes are involuntary and regressive. Many people cannot afford their tax bills, and many small businesses cannot afford to both grow and pay taxes. Bonds can be sold and traded in free markets, while taxes require a huge bureaucracy, the IRS, and lots of private tax accountants and lawyers to collect. Interest on government debt is a smaller drag on the economy than reduced growth from high taxes.
There is a continuous demand for treasury bonds, and this demand will increase as the economy grows. The market cap of treasuries (federal debt) should always be increasing. As long as government debt grows more slowly than the economy (GDP) it is not a problem. We should be able to pay for a "Libertarian dream budget" solely by selling bonds. What could be more liberty-arian than funding the government by voluntarily borrowing the entire budget instead of balancing it by taxes?
If I understand correctly, Libertarians favor a reduced role for government. But you don't believe that government should do nothing at all (i.e. government would still be responsible for national defense?) So how do you draw the line between what government should and should not do? In other words, why should government protect one type of right but not another?
You make a good case from the standpoint of group rights/beleifs/interests. Yes it is good for 'rednecks' or middle class suburban people when their votes count for more.
But how do you justify it from an individual standpoint? How do you explain to somebody that just because they are a member of a large demographic that their vote counts for less than somebody's who happens to live in an area who's views you hold in higher regard (or at least claim should be weighed more heavily)?
Also a candidate would really have to win only in major cities, such as LA, Chicago and New York, and they'd pretty much be guaranteed a victory. Everyone else in the US would be out of luck.
One interesting thing is that highly concentrated areas almost always turn out Democrat. So, by going the majority-vote route, you pretty much know who'd win.
The majority rule idea would make an enormous amount of people furious after it was implemented; since then they'd be able to see how it exactly works.
With that type of a system the rich and famous always win, and the average American *always* loses.
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
This is the central problem with the current Libertarian party. When I say I'm libertarian, I mean I want lower taxes, and don't care what two gay guys do.... I know tons of people who think the same thing but see Libertarian nut jobs talking about "guns for tots" or whatever, and they are turned off. Like many groups, Libertarians are often their own worst enemy
Henry George designed his single tax on land value to be based on assets that have no cost of insurance. The key concept here is "cost of insurance" is zero for land only if you discount the cost of national defense and other societal structures that guarantee land rights. Think about government as reinsurer of last resort and you can start to see that not all assets of a given value have the same cost of ownership. For example, skyscrapers that are symbolic of some hated value system world-wide will necessarily have a higher reinsurance premium associated with them than will some number of undeveloped desert land of comparable value. This is where actuaries make their money.
Seastead this.
As we all know, liberals favor freedom in social issues and control over economic issues while conservatives favor freedom in economic issues and control over social issues. However, increasingly it seems that both liberals and conservatives are tilting toward authoritarianism. Bush has signed into law various entitlement programs, as well as trade tariffs, and Democrats rarely criticize the War on Drugs any longer.
Do you think this shift toward authoritarianism by both major parties will result in a paradigm shift in the country where we no longer discuss liberalism vs. conservatism but rather, authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, and if so, would this allow the Libertarian Party to finally get the recognition it has worked hard for over the past few decades, or are we stuck with this conservatism vs. liberalism battle for ages to come?
If you are elected President, will you finally give the American people access to information about what really happened at Roswell, and what the government knows about UFOs?
Sure, the conspiracy theories that some people are espousing may be a bit ridiculous, but the government's position that there's absolutely nothing going on is just as ridiculous given the mountain of evidence. At the least, the government needs to come clean with whatever it knows just to put peoples' minds at rest and stop giving the conspiracy theorists excuses for their activities.
The correct blog link is:
http://www.badnarik.org/blog/
The blog link in the story points to the main site.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...checker...
...but should information and the pursuit of it be free? My understanding is that you are well experienced programmer/software engineer. What are your thoughts on...
-Reverse Engineering Proprietary software and protocols
-Exporting Crypto to various restricted nations
-The validity of software patents
Natural Selection: self-destruction of the poor and lazy
No, it doesn't. Yes, small states may have more per-capita electoral votes, but under a winner-take-all system, this is irrelevant.
This would be the most easily noticeable if, for example, only California and Wyoming participated in the election. Even though Wyoming has at least 3 times more electoral votes per capita, it would be completely powerless in the presidental election: California's candidate would always win.
A more meaningful statistic is the probability that an individual voter will determine an election (i.e., break an exact tie in the state's vote, and have the voter's state swing the election). The chance of this happening is, of course, miniscule. But it's about 2.5 times more likely for a Californian than for a Montanan. In general, the EC has a significant bias towards large states.
And this is assuming that all 50 states + DC are "swing states". When you consider that small states (especially DC) tend to be "sure" states, the large-state bias is even greater.
Any attempt to address that problem should be designed specifically for that problem - not be arbitrary like the electoral college system.
Probably the cleanest system for fixing it is proportional representation.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Given the recent attacks on personal liberties in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001-09-11, what measures would you try to take to restore Americans' freedoms, given that Congress will probably remain in the control of a "major" party, both of which seem to be riding the fear of the American public (which they have helped to create, eg. sometimes-meaningless Homeland Security alerts) to move from a free society to one in which the government "protects" its citizens by a) limiting the actions they may take as individuals and b) increasing the power and control of the government (and especially the police, FBI, and intelligence agencies)?
In order to be compliant with various building codes (such as the National Electrical Code), all materials used must be "listed as suitable for the application" by UL or another "Nationally Recognized Testing Lab" (NRTL).
When these building codes are adopted into law, this creates a "captive market" for the NRTLs through government coercion. Not quite "Capital-"L" Libertarian philosophy, now is it?
Not to mention the organizations that publish the (copyrighted!) building codes in the first place!
IMHO, once a code is adopted into public law, it should become public domain! But people can and have been sued for making things like bulding codes freely available online.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Why insist on running as a third party candidate? Why not run in the primaries with one of the major parties? It seems that holds a much better chance at getting your view out to the public (look at what McCain achieved in 2000, and Dean in 2004). Whats more, doesn't one appearing as a perpetual loser in the general election just make one's platform look more extremist and less credible?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Given that "campaign promise" is synonymous with "lie", what is the point of asking any candidate about his platform or goals? All you'll get is the campaign promise, which doesn't help you select a candidate. At best, you can try to read his professional poker face while he repeats the well-practiced "story" for yet another audience.
Given that you thus can't make an "informed choice" as any indicative information has all been removed from the reply, why not just flip a coin?
> ask yourself, if our presidential elections were
> based solely on number of votes, what happens
> when someone campaigns solely for the needs of
> the urban population and utterly neglects the
> rural? My guess is, unless the other candidate
> does the same, he will be pretty much guaranteed
> a victory.
actually, it works pretty much the exact opposite in practice.
any candidate who campaigned strongly for the rural vote, promising them whatever they want, will get most of the rural votes. 24% is way more than enough to win an election, given that the margins are often much less than 5%.
at the same time, the urban vote is still divided in the usual way because the "needs of the urban community" are for more diverse / divided / fragmented. the end result is that one rural vote is worth far more than one urban vote.
even winning a significant fraction of the rural vote would be enough to win.
this is why rural voters have massively disproportional power over the electoral process in a country like Australia than they deserve. it is why rural communities and lobby groups get bribed hundreds of millions of dollars every year in special projects and subsidies and relief funds (e.g. Queensland sugarcane farmers recently got $440 million dollars simply because the AUSFTA contained nothing for them - AUSFTA contains nothing for the rest of us, it's a complete ripoff, but nobody else gets millions of dollars "compensation").
> If a massive majority of your population fits
> a certain demographic, your best bet is to
> appeal solely to that majority.
actually, you're better off campaigning to reasonably-large minority interest groups / demographics. if you can get most of any given demographic to vote for you then their votes are a bonus on top of what you would get for the general public.....as long as you can manage to avoid pissing off too many in the general population in the process.
this is why, for example, both major parties in australia aren't bothering to campaign for the general public right now. they are both campaigning for "aspirational" voters in marginal electorates (i.e. those where a swing of a few percent could win the seat) with massive bribes being promised.
it is also why our votes don't really count because the election will ultimately be decided by a very small number of people.
> [...] large expanses of farm country might have
> a chance of making a difference.
the evidence is that rural areas already have grossly disproportionate influence on the political process. they don't need more, they're already disenfranchising urban voters.
ps: this is not meant to be any kind of support for the US electoral college system. from an outsider's perspective, it is incredibly undemocratic. it's bizarre and just plain wrong. for all the faults of the australian system (it's good, but not perfect) i am very glad that we have nothing like it here in australia.
With that type of a system the rich and famous always win, and the average American *always* loses.
And this is different from the current system???
Not only can it be argued that this is a fairer system, but it also saves the state the cost of a separate primary election.
Call it liberal, call it conservative, the one thing the media has done, consistantly, for more than 30 years is ignore the Libertarian Party. Short of getting yourself arrested, what do you plan to do to bring media attention to yourself.
I've seen a number of bullet points of the items you favor, but it's very important to know how you rank them in importance. I may agree in principal with items on your list but they just aren't high priorities for me (example, legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs). I also saw absolutely *nothing* about reproductive rights, which seems odd for a party that emphasizes liberty. Do reproductive rights figure into your priorities somewhere?
I see this topic has already been discussed to death here, however I believe this is the most important issue we face in our pseudo-democracy right now. My question is this:
Are you committed to working with other third parties, especially those on the other side like the Green Party and Communist Party, to push for voter reform legislation such as IRV/PR that would benefit all third parties?
It is clear to me that we must work together toward this goal--the Libertarians and Independence Party working to sway conservative/republican lawmakers, while the Green and Communist parties work to sway democrats. What will you do to help ensure this goal, and thus increase the voice your party has, in addition to other third parties in this country?
What are your thoughts on moving manufacturing jobs to countries such as China? On the one hand, it's embracing a worldwide free market as to the value of labor. On the other, the foreign governments-- not the workers-- get the bulk of the profit since the countries are under statist, one party rule. Is it acceptable for Americans to take advantage of this situation, or is there a philospohical imperative for the consumer to pay more money for goods from enlightened second- and third- world countries in order to guarantee their citizens' eventual freedom?
--All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
The democrats were the second political party to be formed by those disagreeing with the first political party, Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party. The democrats first called themselves the AnitFederalist party, then changed their name to the Democratic-Republicans.
The liberarian party has far more in common with the Anti-Federalist party than the current Democratic party. I think Thomas Jefferson would be horrified to see what has been done by the party he helped found.
there vote truly is irrellevant if cast for Kerry in Massachussetts
Kerry supports amending the constitution to restrict rights of one group.
Republicans would like this to be a campaign to be a referendum on gay marriage, because apparently 56% of voters oppose gay marriage Wouldn't it be great to win the support of that 40% who say that they support gay marriage, while really illustrating the ideals of the libertarian party?
How can you get those votes? Do you plan to actively pursue them?
Thank you very much for running. I recognize that running as a 3rd party candidate is draining fiscally, physically and emotionally. I salute you for living up to the principles envisioned by our forefathers, and doing your part to contribute to the health of our country.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Ballot Access News
Where does Badnarik stand on "defense" spending (not just the amount spent, but how it is spent)? Much of the current system contradicts Libertarian ideology. Several companies that could never survive without government contracts do all their business manufacturing for the military. Barring legalization of patriot missiles for private use, these companies would fall apart.
How would Badnarik deal with this - how does he propose to arm the military?
----
This concludes our transmission to Oceania.
For those who are unfamiliar with the fringe theory that the US government was behind the terror attacks, I suggest reading this:
p it y//
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Yes, the piece is highly biased, and no, it does not offer any conclusive proof. However, it provides an interesting perspective on how the US government could have arranged for the attacks to take place. I can't say as I really believe it, but it's something to think about, and at least for me, it did raise some doubts regarding the official version of how events unfolded.
It will take at least an hour to read and digest the information, and probably another hour to check various facts at Google as you progress through the site. If you don't have the time, bookmark it now and view it later. Should the website disappear - most other mirrors have - you can always access a copy on Freenet, at:
SSK@%7epHAs9FFgE%7emq7J5qQ0RtOy1UmkPAgM/serendi
My question is: Ross Perot got 20 million votes in 1992 but zero Electoral College votes. Assuming my interests are libertarian, please explain how my vote for you in a presidential election will further my libertarian agenda?
For the last century or more Party Politics have destroyed the concept of free elections. As President how would you open the electoral process to everyone?
Consider the following: Imagine the political spectrum as a line with endpoints. Each party has to pick a spot on that spectrum, and they always try to maximize the amount of line they control.
If there are two parties, then each party gets all the vote between their point and the endpoint, plus half the votes "between" the two party points. The contest immediately becomes a race to the center, as the extreme votes in the country are going to usually vote for the closest candidate.
The big problem is that with three players, there's no stable solution to this game. EVERY time there's a third party candidate in the US, the party closest to the independant loses. Anderson in 80, Perot in 88, Nader in 2000.
4+ players, and the game becomes stable again. So the problem isn't the third party, it's the LACK of a fourth.
There are a myriad of problems with this analysis (political spectrum should be at LEAST a grid, if not an n-dimensional hypercube), but it's a start, anyway.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
When law is corrupt, isn't a lawbreaker the opposite of corrupt? Or should the Jews have cheerfully boarded the trains to the camps?
Or rather, do major political parties not adopt it because that sentiment already exists, or does the sentiment exist because major political parties choose not to adopt it? ... I'll have to think about the answer to that one, because to be honest I'm not certain myself.
-Vendal Thornheart
This is a very rude question to ask. What you are basically is saying is "How do you plan to change yourself so others like you and will vote for you?" That's a damned trap. Libertarians have views that most don't, and at this time can't get elected. They shouldn't change, to get elected. Look at what's happened to the Dems and Repubs, because of this.
I hate to say it, since I live in a place that fits the rural demographic and there are a lot of good people in them, but most of the people that live in them tend to be flat out dumb, are poorly educated and are complete suckers for the attack ads, smears and fear mongering that pass for political campaigns.
The number of churches vastly outnumber all other types of major buildings combined, most people are barely getting by but they still pour money in to the collection plates they can't afford in a never ending church building and supporting spree. Bible study and Sunday school tends to outrank a real education in importance, and unfortunately they are complete suckers for the extremist Christian religion pitch that is becoming the mainstay of the Republican party.
They also still tend to be thoroughly bigoted against blacks, hispanics and gays so once again the lily white Republican party suits them to a T.
If you want to see some of the worst pork coming out of Washington its farm subsidies that are being used to buy farm state votes by both parties. Farm state Democrats almost help passed the Republican energy bill for no other reason than it was laden with Ethanol subsidies that goes straight in to the pockets of corn farmers. Unfortunately much of the pork goes to wealthy and corporate farmers who don't need it, rather that poor independent farmers who do.
All in all I'd say its actually proven to be a bad thing for the country that the rural states have disproportional clout in the political process. Fact is they are for the most part nuts a fact born out by the fact that they overwhelmingly support the current President who doesn't have the resume to be President and whose first term is a complete mess if you ever stopped to objectively look at it. As long as he can out "Aw shucks" and "Praise the Lord" his opponent his still wins. Of course the candidate the Democrats fielded is so pathetic anyone could beat him.
Even if you ditched the electoral college the rural states still get disproportionally powerful representation through the Senate.
@de_machina
Are you saying that requiring drivers to have some minimum requirements before driving is corrupt? It's quite a stretch to compare Nazi death camps to a 15 minute basic competency test.
(I won't argue on income taxes, especially when most of the money goes to either poor people or airlines/other industries depending on who's in power)
I was referring more to the taxation portion. By the way, he has significant evidence that paying taxes is not required by law and that the IRS has been enforcing bogus laws on people. He also says that the reason he can't sign a tax return is that it requires him to waive his 5th amendment protections, which certainly seems like a valid argument to me. Regarding driver licensing, roads are a difficult issue. One segment of libertarians believe that roads should be privatized, but I'm not quite sure I agree entirely. Its an issue I'm still pondering.
What is your position on FEMA powers? What is your position on the Patriot Act? What is your position on "The Domestic And Security Enhancement Act of 2003"? What is your position on FEMA camps? What is your position on REX 84? Are you a member of a society such as the Freemasons, Skull & Bones, or other organizations?
Badnarik has principles, and he's damn proud to live by them.
Wow, gotta appreciate that. I'd be damned glad if the mainstream candidates had, you know, at least one principle besides that dedication to tricking the electorate and licking the hands that feed them. I wish I agreed with Badnarik more, because I hate voting for mystery meat; have to this year, though... swing state. I figure if I elect Kerry he won't get a damned thing done while in office (since the house and senate will still be packed with Republicans), so he'll do less active damage to the country and the world than Bush has been doing.
Sad state of affairs. Ah, well. Back to sweet, logical code!
In 1992, the Libertarian Party got 0.28% of the popular vote; in 1996, it got 0.50% of the popular vote; and in 2000, it got 0.36% of the vote. They did get 1.1% of the electorate in 1980, but that's the highest percentage win I see on record. With that consistently low showing, they can't honestly be mounting each candidate's campaign expecting an honest-to-God win.
Assuming the same, the question then becomes: (a) do they have a long-term strategy to increase those votes, and (b) what are the corollary goals they hold to accomplish during a Presidential run, since winning the election is a longshot?
You're taking my question regarding (a) and interpreting it as "how are you going to change yourselves to increase those votes." That speaks more to your interpretation of their position than to mine. The (a) part could just as easily be interpreted as "how are you going to change the electorate," or "how are you going to change the awareness of the electorate," or a number of other different ways. I leave it to the candidate to interpret the original question as he sees fit. You twit.
HOw is this different then just a few people in "Swing" states deciding? Why is it fair to states like NY or California if a bunch of people in iowa decide who the president is.
The truth is that people in urban areas pay out more in taxes then they get back while people in rural states receive more tax money then they pay out. Why should the leeches get to set policy?
You're implying that all the swing states are 100% rural, which I assure you, is not true.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
"How about we make the taxes 100%?"
That is absurd.
"Or maybe we could just have a tax system where you get taxed exactly enough to leave you with the same amount of money as everyone else?"
That is also absurd.
And I notice that you completely skipped over graduated taxes or flat rate taxes. Why?
"It's a fact that when you tax investments more, people invest less."
Incorrect.
The largest investment that 90% of the US population will make is buying a home. Even if the capital gains taxes on this is raised, those people will NOT stop buying homes.
"My point is that there's a balance. You don't want taxes to be 100%, and you don't want them to be 0%."
Great, you advocate a balance between two absurd situations. And that is "insightful"?
"Time and time again, tax rates are reduced and tax revenue is increased."
Check the current economic stats. Taxes are down, but tax revenue is NOT up.
"You accounted for none of these factors, so your implication that taxes should not be reduced in some brackets carries no weight at all."
You have given two absurd situations (0% taxes and 100% taxes) AND you are mistaken about the investments of 90% of the US citizens AND you are wrong about lower taxes equating to higher tax revenue. I don't believe you are qualified to say what has weight and what does not.
"Your post contains one other major logical flaw. If everone in the country benefits from a tax decrease (hypothetically), does it matter at all if the wealth disparity increases? Only to those who prefer to kill the neighbor's cow (so to speak)."
Yes it does matter. This country needs a strong middle-class to drive the economy. It is possible to give a token "cut" to the middle class while giving the majority of the cut to the rich.
How does that help the average person?
Rather, the BULK of the tax cuts should go to the BULK of the population.
Someone saving $1 million because of a tax cut will NOT spend it the same as 1,000 people saving $1,000 because of a tax cut.
To drive the economy, give the money to those who are most likely to spend all of it over the widest possible selection of goods and services.
I'm interested in Libertarian ideas, at least in an intellectual sense. I find it hard to believe that the path toward de-regulation can be taken without inviting massive corruption -- and yes, I mean worse than our current government. My question is:
Assuming that the libertarian party supports de-regulation when properly implemented, how exactly would a well-prepared California libertarian voter have been able to figure out to vote "no" to the specific energy de-regulation plan that wound up creating an opportunity for us to be robbed of $35 billion? How could we have known we were being set up for a swindle?
If the government is there to care for its citizens, --
Right there is where you goofed. Govt is not there to care for its citizens. It's there to govern them; protect the rights of individuals and nothing more. They're not here to mommy us (or rather, they shouldn't be)-- that's not in the contract.
The Govt operates by force. Compassion from the govt is forced compassion. (It's bad enough when I have to force a smile.) Sort of like how a car jacking is a criminal forcing you to be charitably compassionate with your car.
People asking for compassion from the govt are also asking for security and safety. These things are the antithesis of freedom, which is what libertarianism is about.
-Crazed L-guy
I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet:
downloadable videos of Michael Badnarik via bittorrent
The classes on the constitution are extremely insightful.
-metric
No I am responding to the poster who wanted the rural states to have more say. I think that's a horrible idea because by and large they suck up the tax oney from urban areas. In a very real sense those people are welfare recipients.
There is an old joke in the rural west it goes like this. "Why did the farmer want to be buried in a shallow grave?". 'Because he wanted to keep his hand out'
evil is as evil does
What do you think of the evidence that our government was involved in the execution of the 9/11 attacks?
Have you ever thought about the 9/11 attacks ON WEED?
Excellent post, man! And sorry to hear about your situation, but of all the people around here you have an honest chance to drive it in...
;-(
On the other hand, you were intelligent enough to work for Argonne, so you will find a couple of people agreeing with you over here (I hope!), but not in the general populance...
Good luck, and let's hope things will change....
Paul B.
It is quite clear to me that 99.99% of Americans don't know that this Government is a Secular Government for many reasons, not the least of which is a nation of Liberty that demands self-discipline of every individual who claims to embrace these Liberties afforded to every citizen of the United States. This framework made it clear that in order to preserve religious freedom the nation must be secular and view all religions as inherently part of such freedom of thoughts and personal beliefs. This demands no one religion, regardless of its popularity at any time during this nation's lifespan shall claim the right of being the offical religion. If this were to happen the very fabric of our US Constitution would be a sham and be nothing but ink on a dead scroll.
Being a Libertarian I want to know your position, constitutionally speaking, on what reasonable position the Executive office of the President of the United States should take when they take the oath of office and claim to defend the Liberties and Bill of Rights of the US Constitution?
Should it not be clear that all Religious organizations, regardless of one's personal views, be granted Tax Exempt Status or else all Tax Exemption Statuses of traditional and non-traditional bodies be revoked?
The Political Lobbying Machine should be revoked to level the playing field for all. Would it not be most prudent that we demand the US Government develop strict standards specifications for all domestic and foreign--commercial and non-commercial--business entities to pass these standards and maintain them to ensure the US Consumers with the highest quality of goods and services at the most competitive prices? Should not the US Government focus on preserving Domestic Tranquility instead of redefining what Domestic Tranquility is for its US Citizenship?
Michael, would you not agree that a US Government standards group assuring highests standards overseeing private sector companies(i.e., FS=Factors of Safety and Assurance):
- redeveloping an updated national power grid,
- amongst a state-to-state heavy industrial highspeed, as well as a consumer highspeed lightrail infrastructure
, has the potential and minimum expectations of generating millions of new jobs? Would not upgrading the nation's much needed system of services be a necessity to any future president elect to make as a cornerstone of their office, versus this ludicrous Global War on Terror, we and many other nations helped birth during the past 59 years since WWII?Seeing two parties pandering to religious and socialist special interests spits at the very fabric of this Republic. Allowing the rapid consolidation of the banking, telecommunications, public utilities, oil industries so on and so forth reduces competition, raises the cost of living without providing a cost of living increase to compensate and ultimately leaves us all ethically, economically and morally bankrupt to a system run by a business elite that includes all the industries aforementioned. People complain about health care reform when the Government should be demanding that all States honor any health care policy that meets a level, sound and equally accessible standard created and maintained by an impartial, objective Congress.
Everyone is deflecting the fact that the cost of goods and services is going unchecked because the entry to business that will offer comparable goods and services is very difficult to breach.
Today lacks a Trust Buster. What's your take on the effects corporate lobbying has done to business sector and whether or not disbandoning it would help level the playing field and allow innovation to be top dog instead of marketing falsehoods that giants of industry pump to the mass media?
P.S. They'll have to clone me before I vote non-Libertarian. Those who claim it is a wasted vote are the same lemmings who thought the American Revolution was just a fantasy.
Exactly.
The actual number is something like 45%, although it doesn't explicitly say that in this article. I have long been an advocate of a simple yearly "citizen's fee", where government sends you the bill and the citizens see EXACTLY how much they're forking over. (There may or may not be seperate bills for federal/state/local governments.) As it is, government has designed their system to be as un-noticable as possible -- they don't suck us dry all at once, they suck us dry little by little so the average joe has no clue how much he's really paying. If we don't know how much we're paying, how can we determine whether or not we're getting our money's worth?
I for one am voting for all the 3rd party people.
The American People are being abused by the constant beatings of the Republocrats (RIGHT Punch) and Democans (LEFT Punch).
Democans want to destroy America by turning it into a social totalitarian nightmare,
and the Republocrats want to destroy America by turning the whole USA into a Slave Ship for the multinational and foriegn corporations.
America did not grow in the past with 'help' from these two parties - they brought us civil war, Korea, Vietnam, and lots of failed social programs along the way.
We need at least 3 or 4 parties to choose from, and a public that cares about what happens to America's future.
How electoral votes are cast is a state-by-state issue, and the number of electoral votes each state has is determined by the number of representatives and senators that the state sends to D.C.
A direct popular vote for president would result in the top 50 cities deciding who is president, and the current system ignores states with small populations. It also makes it very difficult for third party candidates to win any electoral votes.
Would you support awarding electoral votes at a congressional district level instead of state level, with the two senatorial votes being subject to public debate/vote of the state legislature?
This would force candidates for president to campaign district by district (instead of state by state), and also encourage the president to be a strong advocate of state's rights (since the state legislatures controls a large number of votes, and of course they want power/money).
Under this system, it should also be easier for third party candidates to win electoral collage votes.
(1) What were people living like one generation before the industrial revolution?
(2) Why did people take those 60-hour minuscule-pay inhumane jobs, and send their children in, too?
People love to compare conditions in factories during the industrial revolution to conditions today. But that's not the right comparison. The right comparison is conditions in factories during the industrial revolution to conditions outside the factories during the industrial revolution.
"If capital gains taxes are up, people can't afford as expensive of a house, so they buy a cheaper one, also known as investing less."
Capital gains taxes do NOT stop you from buying a more expensive house.
They just tax the money from the SALE of that house.
"The average person might not understand why, but the loans may be more expensive because of increased forclosure possibility or some such, and will cause them to buy a cheaper house or do less investing for retirement."
No, the loans would not be more expensive. Borrowing the money to buy the house has nothing to do with the tax rate at time of sale.
Why would there be an increased foreclosure possibility?
"The effect of those higher taxes will be represented somehow. Maybe some will even choose to rent instead."
The effect of those higher taxes WOULD be represented BUT NOT BY ANY CHANGES IN 90% OF THE POPULATION.
"I said, hypothetically, that everyone in the country benefits. Isn't benefit help?"
Yes, but that still doesn't answer my question "How does that help the average person".
"Let's say the taxes go from 100% to 50%, wouldn't that benefit everyone?"
You start with an absurd situation that does not exist. Therefore, any conclusion you draw is based upon an absurdity and is irrelevant.
"Again, hypothetically, if a flat tax is beneficial to everyone, why not do it?"
You need to get away from the "hypothetically". If, hypothetically, killing everyone at age 30 is beneficial, why not do it?
"Just the fact that some people benefit more than others hardly seems like a reason to prevent anyone at all from benefitting."
Incorrect. Under every system, SOMEONE benefits. My point is that the system should be structured so that 90% of the population benefits the most.
But even assuming that charities would be 2 times more efficient than the state, if taxes are abolished (or severely minimized) the average citizen will need to voluntarily pay 25% of his income. Do you think this will work?
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Mr. Badnarik,
I have studied the Libertarian platform and, although I don't agree with everything, I see an over all consistent Constitutional foundation to the sections that I can live with. My only area of concern is in how they will deal with terrorist groups and protect the U.S. from future attacks by people whose fundamental beliefs include setting up Islamic law on earth. Libertarians take a non-aggression policy that "The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.", but that does not seem to enable us to protect ourselves from ideologues that are not part of a particular geographical nation, but still an enemy willing to attack us using non-conventional warfare. I believe it is in our best interest to target them and act in a pre-emptive manner, if possible. Are the Libertarians prepared to do this and how?
-----
The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /
With the cases like the SCO v IBM, RIAA v 12 year old kids in public housing, ridiculous patents for obvious things, and the MPAA v DVD Owners - and knowing your background as a computer consultant, what is YOUR stand on "Intellectual Property" and the associated laws and copyright?
Do you feel that corporations are becoming too powerful because of laws placed on the books to protect the consumer and smaller developers from absuses by better funded corporations, and if so, what will you do when elected to correct these issues?
Further, what is your stand on requiring Gov't to cut costs by using open source/free software to replace overpriced retail software?
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
The way I currently view American politics, is that we are nearing what Hegel called the "synthesis". He states that in every era a prevailing world view or thesis exists (conservatism), this is countered by an antithesis (liberalism). Eventually the two will meld and become the synthesis which in turn serves as the thesis for the next era. This is happening now. So-called "conservatives" and "liberals" have had steadily had less to argue about over the past atleast 30 years. They now become increasingly blurred and mixed. Liberalism is becoming the new conservatism. Now though, classical liberalism or libertarianism is coming into view. As more and more people become disenfranchised with the current state of politics, libertarian thought will rise to take up the mantle of antithesis. Or perhaps I have it all wrong and libertarianism is really the synthesis since it takes the "best" parts of conservatism and liberalism. Hmm, something to ponder... Anyways, I guess I'll ask Mr. Badnarik a question since I'm here... Mr. Badnarik, I will be voting for you this November and my question is how will you gain access to the public in order to dispell myths and misconceptions about libertarianism. To demonstrate what I mean, I once met a person and I told them I was a Libertarian and he said "oh, aren't they communists or something?" I was in a word flabbergasted.
With the recent outbreak of terrorism in Russia, are you worried about the stability of the region? Do you think it is important to have a safe and stable Russia to continue the fight in the Middle East? Do you think Vladimir Putin's new plan for a "unifed goverment" will help in anyway? Are you worried about Russian military assets making there way into the hands of terrorists?
The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail. The enduring importance of the Statement of Principles requires that it may be amended only by a vote of 7/8 of all registered delegates at a Regular Convention.
OK.....so there were around 430 Delegates or so at the last National Convention in Atlanta. So that means a huge number, like what, 380+ people would have to vote in favor of changing the Statement of Principles in order to change it. Why is this bar set so high, and is it possible that it's too high for the Party to attract a wider share of members?
All I was aying is that, if the LP can't get 5,10, or 20% of the vote it's because people don't like what they stand for. If they don't like what they stand for, the LP will never become popular. So either they stick to their core values or they change to get that 20%, and then go back to their core values. ( In theory, I don't see the Dems or Repubs returning to their core values anytime soon)
Good grief, now you're even answering the question I posed him, and I'm sorry, but I don't want your answer, I want his. Like I said, I'm asking what he and the Libertarian Party have in mind to eventually win an election. Would they change their core values, or do something entirely different? Dean showed that you don't necessarily have to abandon core values to get an audience.
Over the past 4 years I and many others have been struggling to survive. In 2001 our focus changed direction to wars and I believe that the American people were pushed aside.
Some time after 9/11/2001 I sent an e-mail to the white house addressed to the president (yeah I knew it was futile but I was being optimistic). In this e-mail I addressed the concern of the airline industry having financial woes due to the grounding of all commercial aircraft for 3 days.
My opinion and suggestion was to NOT dump our tax dollars directly into the airlines, and to shift that spending to the Information Technology industry. Now I am not for a bunch of corporate government hand-outs; however I believe the hand-out to the airline industry was simply a band-aid.
A much better approach would have been to build up an industry that had been directly responsible for the abundant growth of the airline industry in the 90's, that would be Information Technology.
Information Technology is the future and for some reason we are being ignored. We are constantly being told that employment is up, jobs are available. Perhaps the president and his constituents should venture forth from the East coast.
California (silicon valley), Arizona (Silicon Desert) and Washington (silicon forest) all have felt the current administrations corruption and disregard first hand. We have been ignored and apparently the future is NOT where we are heading, over the last 4 years we have actually regressed. I do feel it is a fault of the current administration, and not just a mere coincidence.
Another hit to the American people was the idiocy of the tax refund from our surplus. Granted the 300 helped me a bit while I was unemployed however it did NOT help me keep my 401K. It is NOT helping me now.
My Question:
In short Mr Badnarik, what are your thoughts on the current state of affairs with regards to unemployment in general and specifically the Information Technology Industry?
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
"No, the BULK of the tax cut should go to the BULK of the taxpayer and if that means I pay $200 less and bill gates pays $50K less than that means I have an incentive to get that rich."
What you're saying is that if there is a graduated tax system (as we have now), then you personally do not have any incentive to earn more wealth.
Too bad for you. It seems to work rather well for most other people.
Here are some simple example numbers for you to show the flaws in your logic.
$100,000 income, taxed at 25%
$75,000 left.
$1,000,000 income, taxed at 50%
$500,000 left.
Now unless IN YOUR WORLD, $500,000 is LESS than $75,000 or you have some personal problem with making $500,000 after taxes, I don't see where you lose your incentive to earn more if it is taxed at a higher rate.
The problems illegal immigration currently causes are to the immigrants, not the native born. A steady supply of cheap labor helps many parts of our country. The labor cannot effectively organize or question management, as they can call the federal government to remove those that dare speak up; replacement labor is available.
If you think that the problem with illegal immigrants is taking jobs from American Citizens, try roofing in 100 degree heat one day.
We need to shutdown bases in other countries. Yes, maybe own some land in case of need. But let's save alot of cash here.
The military can go anywhere, setup within days.
We don't need to pay for bases.
When's the last time you walked by the Japanese airbase in Ohio? Or the German navy port in Virginia. Never is my point.
As president, what will your foreign policy grand strategy be?
There is much public policy discussion regarding changing or reforming the US Intelligence Community. What are your views on this? What changes, if any, to you propose.
I suspect you're a troll, but since you're modded up to 4, I'll reply anyway.
The November 2004 Presidential election will decide whether Bush or Kerry will be president. I don't like that choice, but it's a fact that that's the choice.
A third candidate who's seen as right-of-center will take votes away from Bush, and therefore help Kerry. Just as Ross Perot decided the 1992 election by taking votes away from Bush Sr.
And a third candidate who's seen as left-of-center will take votes away from Kerry, which (since the election is close) will cause Bush to be elected.
Since the likely result of his participation is to ensure the election of George W. Bush, I cannot understand why anybody other than a Bush supporter wants Nader to take part in this election. It's got nothing to do with freedom of choice. Even if he's on the ballot, you can't choose Nader as your President; you can vote for him, but the result is equivalent to not voting at all.
As for Nader's motivation in helping Dubya to win by running, it simply shows once again that nobody should expect a pol to believe what he says. Nader has made a career out of causes like the environment, but he clearly doesn't give a shit for them per se - it's just a career move.
What would be the top 3 priorities of a Michael Badnarik presidency?
Refunds still imply someone to administer them. Thus you still have the overhead of a bureaucracy.
Refunds still imply that the government gets to hold your money, interest free, before giving it back to you.
Refunds still imply an arbitrariness to how much the gov't is going to give back.
Why not simply not tax this amount in the first place? As a bonus, we can do this in a principled (non-arbitrary) manner. Exempt food/clothes/medicine (the things most necessary to provide for our guaranteed right to life) from tax, and the things that "the poor" most need, and spend most of their money on, are more affordable. One simple universal rule based on principles of liberty, no bureaucracy needed, no waiting to get your own money back and you get to use it in the meantime.
Constitutionally Correct
As a Florida voter in the 2000 election, I'd like to point out another reason why the electoral college was a good thing...
The total percentage points for Gore and Bush were within what, 3% or each other nationally in that election? That's low enough to be within the margin of error, right? Which implies a recount. And since we're going with straight majority, we're recounting the entire country!! If you thought the Florida recount was bad, this would be an even bigger debacle.
With the electoral college in place, we can count only those states that were within the margin of error themselves and not worry about the rest.
Florida was not the only state to have royally screwed up the election process, it was just the only one that was within the specified margin of error AND could have actually changed the election. So we heard about the Floridiots, rather than rampant problems in any of the other 49 states. If anything, it should have taught us that the actual margin of error in voting is larger than what is required for a recount.
I apologize for not presenting numbers to go along with my assertations. I've worked it out before, but I'm on break at work now and don't have time to either track 'em down or redo them.
In some cases, days may be too long. Aircraft carriers give us some of the same capabilities as bases, but you can't win a war (or deter a well equiped aggressor nation) with aircraft carriers. There's too many targets. There's really no substitute for ground troops, and they need staging areas, supply lines, airstrips and ports to bring in equipment, etc.. Expecting them to be able to magically materialize at the right moment in a stratigically advantageous position all at once is unrealistic.
If you don't have overseas bases, your military presence doesn't ammount to much. That's a big strategic advantage to give up, and it may have a destabilizing effect on some parts of the world.
-jim
Agreed, but try pasting that graphic on CNN! The best compromise between personal accuracy and 'ease of use' I've come across so far is a cube, with one's position located on three policy axes: government spending, social freedoms, and corporate-friendliness.
Described in more detail here.
Dyolf Knip
I am planning on voting Libertarian only in hopes that if enough votes pile up in the Libertarian column a major party will be compelled to revise their platform to include a more Libertarian outlook (much the way the budget balancing Reform Party resulted in the budget finally being balanced -- well it was nice while it lasted anyway).
My question for Mr. Badnarik is, "Is this a good reason to vote Libertarian?"
Paranoia means having all the facts. ~William S. Burroughs
I don't buy this "get rid of taxes and everyone will be more generous" line of thought. Even if everyone donated money to charities (and that's hard to believe in our country), you'd have 10 people giving to the needle exchange program, and 100,000 people giving to cuddly kittens foundation. Crucial services for the poor would never get paid for. The whole point of having a government-sponsored social safety net is to ensure that money goes to where it needs to, and that everyone pays their fair share. Replacing taxes for social services with donations just wouldn't accomplish that.
-Mark
I also saw absolutely *nothing* about reproductive rights, which seems odd for a party that emphasizes liberty.
The Libertarian platform is founded on limiting government to what is necessary for the protection of human rights to life, liberty, and justly acquired property. Even under a socially conservative regime, both sex partners still have the liberty to use anticonceptive measures. But under the 13th Amendment, people are not property; rather, under the 5th and 14th, they have the right to life, and others don't have the liberty to take this right away by force.
Now the difference between pro-life and pro-choice platforms lies primarily in the definition of a person. What do pro-choice advocates rely on when deciding that a 30-week-old fetus, which can almost always be delivered as a healthy preemie, is not a person?
Can these groups [Libertarian Party and Green Party] ever ally
Yes, but a libertarian green party would confirm Godwin's Law.
If you don't like it, move. I hear North Dakota is very pleasant in January, and you would get to maximize your "voter impact."
If you don't like the constitiution, get people to ammend it...
I can believe that in a free market, you can't have monopolies on commodities. My point remains is that if there is real scarcity, such as geographic scarcity, then monopolies or oligopolies can and will develop, even in a free market.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
A more meaningful statistic is the probability that an individual voter will determine an election (i.e., break an exact tie in the state's vote, and have the voter's state swing the election). The chance of this happening is, of course, miniscule. But it's about 2.5 times more likely for a Californian than for a Montanan. In general, the EC has a significant bias towards large states.
I'm not sure what led you to make up this probability.
If there are 3 people in Wyoming, then there is a very large likelyhood of a person there casting the determining vote
If there were 101 people in California, then the odds of there being an election decidable for a single vote is less.
The fewer people, the less the possible difference is, hence a greater probability of a deciding vote existing.
My question is this: As a strict Constitutionalist, if the Congress were to Declare War on another Nation, would you as Commander-in-Chief support and pursue that war to the best of your and our abilities? Or are you philisophically opposed to all war?
You can vote right here, using Approval voting.
There are more Condorcet and Approval polls going on here.
(register)
More about alternative election methods will be posted in the next few weeks here
http://www.masquilier.org/republic/election/ Condorcet, Plurality voting and alternative voting enabled bulletin board.
No, they just suck up $30 billion a year in subsidies... blah
The ranchers sure don't get much subsidies. Except Ted Turner and his failed buffalo ranches.
This guy is way out there
That's exactly what the framers had in mind. In a true democracy of majority rule in direct voting, the majority would easily supress the rights of a minority. Where would we be now if ideas that came out of minorities were supressed instead of being able to form groups that impacted the outcome of an election? Possibly still holding slaves and not having anything resembling equal employment opportunity, as much as we'd like to think this is something we suddenly decided was the right thing to do, it came out of minorities influencing the vote.
The founders of the consitution never intended a democracy, they intended a Republic where representatives made the laws, not the simple majority.
In the shadow of the subverted 2000 election...
A vote for Kerry is not a vote for a democrat, it is a vote for a non-republican. A vote for anyone else *is* a vote for Bush.
Since you support smaller government, would you agree that a Kerry administration would be more aligned with your Libertarian values than the current Bush administration? Bush has overseen the greatest expansion in government and debt in the history of the world.
GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
Depending upon the re-write of the current tax laws ...
But, last year (I believe), the money from the sale of your home was taxable, as capital gains, if you did not buy another home within 12 months.
"There are a lot of side-effects from introducing taxes on the sale of houses. Right off the bat a few clear effects would be felt:"
The sale is already taxed.
"free speech only applies to public property...If there is no public property, how are free speech rights protected?"
So when governments in places like Iran and Russia shut down private newspapers, that's not a violation of free speech? Of course it is. The 1st Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, restrict what government can do, namely to private citizens and their affairs and property. Free speech rights are protected by defending the 1st Amendment, not by appropriating private property or telling property owners what their house rules may be.
My question for Badnarick is this:
I know you're a libertarian. I read your biography and most of your position papers. But what sets you apart form other libertarians?
A.) Are there any issues you disagree with the party about?
B.) How can you help a party of cool logic be heard in a country of warm emotion?
First off, I do think something needed to be done with Iraq, that being said, I think that what the USA did to Iraq was about as wrong as is humanly possible.
How would you suggest we remedy the situation? Many of my libretarian friends pretend it's just as simple as saying "We just need to pull out of there..." when in actuality it's quite complex, and were we to simply "up and leave," we'd be leaving a power vacuum which would no-doubt be filled by someone as bad as, if not worse than then prior regime.
what kind of hat will you wear if invited to debate? a big old moose head, tin foil, or one with the beer cans on it? maybe one with a giant nut on top of it would work.
Offtopic: you're too verbose. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Ah, I thought of another example of Social Conservative/Economic Anticapitalist. The Quakers! It took me a while to come up with an example that exists in America, but I found one (albeit extremely small) group. =)
-Vendal Thornheart
Actually, scratch that. I just realized that I confused Socially Conservative with Morally Conservative. I guess that's a third dimension to potential political alignment. =)
-Vendal Thornheart
"I believe that there are many answers. It's up to us to figure out what it will be. However, I think that if we think about things clearly enough, that most people will agree about certain things."
should be
"I believe that there are many valid answers that have the potential to lead us to a better society. It's up to us to figure out what kind of society we want to live in will be. However, I think that if we think about things clearly enough, that most people will agree about certain things."
Remember, Smith lived in the 18th century, Marx, the 19th. We're in the 21st century. Neither Smith nor Marx thought about things in anything remotely approaching a scientific way. That, in my opinion is part of why their systems didn't turn out that great. But, now we're in the 21st century. We have experience, 300 years of history, and multiple real world experiments with both systems. Further, we have computers, which we can use to experiment with alternative models, before we ever attempt to try them. The idea that we must continue to use the methods of 18th century idealists and philosophers is ludicrous, in my opinion.
So the seller drops the price until it matches market value.
I take it you haven't bought a house yet.
... a lot less buying of products and a lot more renting and leasing, at least those things that would lend themselves to that concept. No outright ownership/purchase = no tax. You'd have to tax services at the same rate then as sales of goods, or should I say all financial transactions. What person would want to pay a tax on durable goods that wear out anyway when they could avoid it by renting instead?
All in all though I'm in favor of eliminating the income tax, the IRS and egads get rid of the federal reserve conjob, the worst economic abomination evah. Even if we stick with a fiat currency, there is NO reason to not do it with our own treasury and to eliminate the whole "interest" scam that goes along with the FED. Paying interest to mega billionaires who can poof create the currency that they lend is pure-D nutz. That would save..uhh.. a ZILLION bucks right there, might even eliminate the whole need to tax at all. Just tightly control the money supply and never inflate it beyond actual probable growth. Government could still spend all they wanted to like now, and minus the "interest" could provide even more services. It would be the same poof created "money", so the only difference would be losing the interest we somehow "owe" them bozos.
"I sure haven't, but if everyone has to pay the taxes, then everyone is going to raise the price of the houses, to cover some or all of their loss."
Okay, let me go over some BASICS. Capital gains is paid when you cash out an investment.
If you sell your house (an investment) and you roll the money over into another house (the same type of investment) within 12 months, you do NOT pay any capital gains taxes on it.
That is how the tax system works right now.
If you do NOT roll it into a new house, then you pay the capital gains taxes.
So, since most people selling their homes are going to be purchasing another home, they will not raise the price to cover taxes that they will not be paying.
Instead of arguing from your hypothetical "market" fantasy, why don't you learn how the current tax system works?
I have been struggling with my vote for November for some time now. I think I have finally come to terms with the fact that I am not voting for Bush or Kerry, but I am having trouble with a vote for Badnarik. I consider myself a Libertarian but I am afraid that Badnarik's focus is wrong and I would love to hear his response and thoughts on the party in general. Mainly, I think his focus on pot is disproportionate to the other problems of the country. I am not a pot smoker or drug user although the idea of legalizing it does appeal to me on most levels. The thing is that it appears to me that the Libertarian party can be viewed as the "Legalize It" party. I really think we have bigger fish to fry and don't want to send the wrong message with my vote and my frustration level with the government. Democrats seem to complain about Nader stealing votes from them in 2000, but instead I believe in taking responsibility rather than assigning blame. If the democrats want those votes back, what has the Democratic Party done to court those who voted for Nader last time. Do they address the issues those folks are most concerned with better? Instead of sitting around and blaming Nader, what have they done to change and fix the problem? I read an article on the Prohibition Party from 1916 & 1920. After having votes "siphoned off" from traditional republicans, the republicans adopted the prohibition stance in the next election won those voters and won the election. If I can vote for a Libertarian candidate and the Republicans see enough votes there to try and listen to figure out how they can earn those votes, I don't want to have the message be that we need to legalize. I want my 3rd party vote to say "I'm frustrated / I am fed up with invasions of privacy / I am sick of out of control spending". I think if Badnarik got any decent percentage, it would send the message if anyone was in fact trying to figure out how to change of "the people want to smoke weed". As such I am thinking about writing in someone like McCain or Giuliani as a protest vote.
You want income taxes and import/export fees eliminated. Then how do we pay for small core Federal government? Can't find anything on LP.org or your website read about how to pay for fed. gov. without IRS.
A problem with this is that it's estimated that for consumption taxes to replace all current federal taxes, the national sales tax rate would have to be 45% with NO exceptions (which, oddly enough, is about the same rate the working poor pay in Oregon right now on their income).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Pure capitalism, on a national scale, invariably ends with Murder, Inc. changing the rules to keep themselves in power permanently.
Pure communism, on a national scale, invariably ends with economic collapse as people have no incentive to work.
A functional large nation must balance government interference (for example, we need laws against murder, and they need to be enforced somehow) against individual freedom (for example, a man must be able to profit from his labors).
Where do YOU, Mr. Badnarik, draw the line? Can you give us a concrete example, for instance on environmental issues? Libertarians seem to split between rabid Randite pollution-worshippers and granola-eating California tree-spikers, so that might be a good place to show your ideas.
Advocating free trade, strong property rights, that's easy. Please talk to us instead about some edge cases, where idealism must confront pragmatism.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact IP legislation, but it does not mandate it. The same part of the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes. But, the Constitution laying out the framework for taxation does not all by itself mean anyone in particular needs to support the existence of taxes, and I think libtertarians are generally opposed to taxes. It can be the same way with IP laws. Whether that's a good idea or not is of course a totally separate question.
Information Asymmetry
The problem isn't so much that salesmen lie, the problem is that a consumer doesn't have any way to verify the salesman's claims, regardless of whether he's lying or not. If the customer can't independantly verify that the thing he's buying isn't junk, he's going to assume that it is. Consequently, there's a strong disincentive to sell high quality products when the consumer is going to assume he's buying junk, and won't extra for a quality product. If a company can't make money selling a quality product, all companies will eventually end up selling junk.
-jim
These questions fall under the same general umbrella.
If I am not mistaken, you support the right of people to both engage in consensual incest
and/or engage in consensual sexual activities in exchange for money?
Do you believe it is the right of an individual to engage in sexual activities with the animals they own?
If I may also ask, is it the right of an individual to make duplicate copies of him or herself?
Thank You.
"strikes are sometimes legitimate methods of communication which would be impossible without public streets and sidewalks"
Only if the employer is the private owner. If the union owns the strike area, then the reverse applies (it would actually strengthen their position). If someone else owns the strike area, they would tend to let the union use it in return for a fee (possibly something that the union pays *before* the strike, in case of a strike). For the employer to prevent that, they would have to outbid the union at *each* possible strike location.
Even if the employer purchases all the areas around the place of employment, that just expands the perimeter.
From your web site one of your bullet points under "Why Vote for Badnarik/Campagna?" subheading "Why should Republicans support Badnarik/ Campagna?" states the following: "If George Bush wins this election, Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee in 2008" What does this mean? Not only is your comment vague and apparently unrelated you make a perdiction as though it is an almost certainty.
Also under the subheading "Why should members of the Reform Party support Badnarik/ Campagna?": You state: "Veto any unbalanced budget" this really makes no difference unless you also supporting passing a law that would require the government to meet Sarbanes-Oxley accounting requirements. In simpler terms force the government to adhere to the same accountings standards as the private sector. Currently Congress (due to the current government accounting ) ignores unfunded retirement obligations and leaves over a trillion dollars off its annual deficit.
This is great news.
Just pick a federal regulator and fire them. Then rehire them plus 150 people needing jobs. Repeat until we have 100% employment.
Bonus question: Can we repeat past 100% employment? Would that create new people, or just add to existing salaries, or what?