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.

Comments

Anagram of Michael Badnarik

[tod_miller]

Michael Badnarik = I'm a backhand lier

Anagram of the day? (go on, test it! and yes, it isn't perfect)

What Would Ayn Do?

[qweqazfoo]

What's your favorite Ayn Rand book? How many times have you read Atlas Shrugged? Who is John Galt?

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.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate.

[TykeClone]

It's a conspiracy by the democrats and the republicans! If the libertanians fielded a candidate that wasn't a kook it would threaten all of the little fiefdoms in the federal government desatablizing the whole works. The world as we know it would end and Bill Gates would become "PresideNT" (NT standing for new technology).

Aren't you glad they only field kooks now?

Ewwwwww!

[fw3]

I mean honestly I observe a fairly large fraction of libertarians *here on /.* (and in some other rather marginal communities I'm part of). But seriously, l'ism imo is nearly inherently flamebait (and effectivley irrelevant) out among the rest of the world.

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.

Re:I have a question

[dinojemr]

As a follow up to that; how do you feel about the strategic support that Republicans are giving Nader in an effort to help Bush win?