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.
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 think the original poster was thinking more along these lines: Fraud may still be illegal, but under a "perfect" libertarian government, would an entity like the SEC even exist? After all, it is the job of the SEC to regulate the markets. Doesn't that very job contradict the libertarian ideals? If the there isn't an entity regulating the markets, how do you catch the Enron's, the WorldCom's, the CNBC talking heads that are hyping a company that they have money invested in, etc?
Which leads to a valid interview question: why does the LP insist on associating itself with kooks?
One Lyndon LaRouche is enough, already.
I think the US is the only democracy in the world that does not ahve a multi-party system. In most other democracies, if the winning party has less than a majority of the vote, they have to form a governing coalition in their Parliament.
I am not advocating the idea of switching the US to a parliamentary democracy, I'm just saying that most democracies appear to do well under a multi-party system.
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?
"If the there isn't an entity regulating the markets, how do you catch the Enron's, the WorldCom's, the CNBC talking heads that are hyping a company that they have money invested in, etc?"
You mean like they did with Enron and WorldCom? It was the government that was helping to prop Enron up. Although an interesting question I think a better one would be this.
The market is supposed to be moderated by the consumers. How do we give the consumers the knowledge they need to moderate the market intelligently?
What an unfortunate point of view. Don't you realize that your party need not win for your vote to matter? Besides, the Libertarians need not win for them to affect elections/policies. Suppose the Libertarians started getting 10% of the popular vote - don't you think the two major parties would begin to listen to what they have to say?
It really depresses me when I hear people say things like this... they have it completely wrong, and are truly the barriers to change.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Unless you want to argue that government interferes in the software market by enforcing copyright law, I think Microsoft is a pretty good counter-example to this Libertarian argument.
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!!
Honestly, it's not a good idea to have a multi-party system.
I am very much opposed to this view. In a two-party system you will automatically get two extreme views, left and right, because the two parties have to exaggerate their differences to get as many voters as they can. I think this is partly responsible for the weird distorted view many Americans have of the world. A multi-party system allows for nuances, which is good because opinions of the voters are better represented in the government (so many % extreme right, so many % extreme left, so many % somewhere in the middle, etc.). The parties participating in an election can not exaggerate too much because they do not want to be too much comparable with other parties that have more (or less) extreme views on certain subjects.
-- Cheers!
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.
To elaborate even further, since in a two party system, there is not effective threat from a third party, the parties can collude against the people while using the other party as the eternal "bogeyman". "Hey, you better vote for us or you'll get screwed even HARDER!" It also tends to divide people on irrelevant and superficial things rather than actual policy. For instance, the parties are mostly culturally divisive. I vote for candidate X because he has a southern twang and you vote for candidate Y because he has a new england accent; because, in fact, their effective policies on a vast variety of things are very similar. Total BULLSHIT craven reasons that just serve to divide and distract the country.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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/
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?
> In a two-party system you will automatically get two extreme views, left and right, because the two parties have to exaggerate their differences to get as many voters as they can.
Actually, I think we're getting the opposite effect. We're getting 2 candidates pretty close overall, because they fear distancing themselves too much from the middle states.
It's as if they realize all the far-right and far-left will vote along party lines even if a monkey was running, so they focus their campaignins and platforms to convert the swayable middle.
Cynically, both are rich Yale grads who favor big government, albeit in different ways. While their social agendas are very different, that (surprisingly) hasn't been the major focus lately.
As a friend from England said, 'you keep saying you have a liberal and conservative party. We see it as you have a conservative and a more-conservative party.'
Not stating my own party view, just pointing out that parties seem to drift to center.
A.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
For example, the Socialists will have the most members elected in parliament, but not enough to rule. They will ally with the Greens, who will vote with the Socialists- thus giving the Socialists a de facto majority. In exchange, the Greens will get some of their ideas through, and the Socialists will support them on them. The Greens might even get a minister position or two.
That said, that does not work in the US. When a 3rd party get votes, and thus aids another party, they do not get help from the party they assisted. The Reform party helped get Clinton elected, by drawing votes in 1992 from Bush to Perot. Did the Reform party get any laws pushed through Congress? Did they get a position in the Cabinet? No. Same thing happened with the Green party, which drew votes away from Gore to Nader. Let's just say Bush has been awful with regards to the environment.
In a "winner take all" system like the US, we will never really have strong 3rd parties- too much of a barrier to entry. The 3rd parties lack access to debates, federal dollars, media focus, fundraising dollars, etc. Sure a few idealists support them, and they get a percentage point or two, but it's been a long time since a viable 3rd party was a national player over a period of time. I myself am a Green party member, and vote for a Green candidate if there is one, then I vote Libertarian, then Democrat as a 3rd choice.
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've found that many of the wacky beliefs I once thought Libertarians held were really distortions, whose origins I won't speculate upon.
Most Libertarians I've spoken with do NOT think citizens should be able to have their own nuclear weapons, as such weapons are not defensive in nature. Rifles, pistols, even artillery or armor are generally believed to be maintainable and acceptable for private ownership, and can be used for defending one's land or property. Nuclear weapons have no such redeeming value, and are good only as a deterrent, and therefore should be confined to the professional military's purview.
My question is this:
What attempts is the Libertarian Party making to reach out to the less-extreme, or perhaps less-informed citizens in our country, to help them understand that Libertarians aren't all raving loons?
What sorts of regulations and rules if any do libertarians believe are necessary to prevent the descent into "survival of the fittest"?
This one's easy. Basically, what defines libertarianism is the idea that government is there to secure negative rights, and as little else as possible. Negative rights are things like your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (notice it's the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself). Basically it boils down to property rights and preventing other people from taking your stuff or your freedoms away from you. Contrast this with certain (relatively) recently suggested legal rights such as the right to food and shelter, which someone has to actively provide. Most libertarians have no problem with government creating or enforcing laws in general; they just think government interference in private citizens' lives should be kept to the minimum amount possible. (Of course, what's "possible" is always the subject of heated debates even among fellow libertarians.)
Mike
I don't think you quite hit the nail on the head though yes a candidate should win only if they get 50+% of the vote.
What you really need:
1) A constitutional amendment is required to dispose of the god awful electoral college. It all by itself discourages voting and is disenfranchising millions of voters in the Presidential election. If you are a blue in a very red state or a red in a very blue state you are wasting your vote thanks to the electoral college. It also results in the incumbent bestowing, and candidates promising, disproportionate pork to the battleground states, and they know it and milk it for all its worth. The candidates also don't campaign in any uncontested state further cutting many people out of the process.
2) There needs to be legislation or a constitution amendment that prevents the two major parties from passing laws that prevent new parties from starting or gaining access to the ballot. Indiana for example requires you get 3% in every election. As soon as a party falls below that as the Green's did in 2002 they are disbanded by the tyranny of the state and have to petition to get on the ballot and win 3 percent again to be recognized as a party. It is blatantly undemocratic and not something you would think could happen in this nation which is a supposed pillar of Democracy.
3) I really doubt you are going to make any ranking system work. It would be chaos considering this country has trouble just counting a simple vote for a candidate. Stick with the system proven in every other country in the world everyone gets on the first ballot and a run off between the top two candidates if no one wins 50% in the first ballot.
4) I dearly love to see the major parties have to form coalitions to control the House and Senate. Its often chaotic in Isreal, Italy etc. but its the only way people with minority views have any influence on government. As it is one of the two major parties wins control of the House, Senate and White House and they go off the deep end as the Republican's are doing and the Dem's have done in the past. Gridlock really is the best situation even though many bad mouth it, because no new laws are better than a bunch of whacked in the head laws that are opposed by a big percentage of American's like the Patriot Act.
If you want to see the last really successful 3rd party I think it was Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive/Bull Moose party. Interestingly enough it sprung out of an era where the very wealthy and corporate monopolies were massively abusing the majority of Americans and the tax system was taxing working people in to the ground while and encouraging wealth concentration in the hands of the lucky few, a situation very similar to the one we have today.
@de_machina
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
I have voeted Libertarian the last 3 elections but this year the stakes are too high.
The stakes are too high? Isn't that just another way of saying that you've bought into the scaremongering of one side or the other?
As long as people keep voting to stop what they (think they) hate rather that voting for what they want, the negative attack campaigns scaremongering on either side of the fence and always threatening how it will be "So much worse under the other guy" will continue.
The really sad thing is that most of the scaremongering is crap. They take positions, and they sput rhetoric, but very little actually gets enacted (of the scaremongering claims - plenty of bad stauff gets enacted, but both sides tend to share equally in that).
Get out of this silly "Us v. Them" mentality.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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
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.
I think questions should focus on the party's policy - that's the most important thing, really. For example:
"Much can be said for leaving business choices to businesses. However, in humanity's last big experiments with unregulated commerce (during the industrial revolution), we saw 60 hour work weeks, miniscule pay, inhumane working conditions, child labor, extensive investor fraud, and an appalling divide between the poor and wealthy. Does your party have any plans for trying to prevent such abuses in its quest for corporate deregulation, or is that not something that the government should concern itself with?"
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
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.
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.
This one is fairly easy, I posted my reply to similar sentiments in my weblog not long ago. I'll paste the contents below, to avoid blatant whoring.
As I see it, a vote for a third party carries far more weight than a vote for one of the primary parties. When you vote, for instance, Libertarian, your vote gives them proportionally more media coverage, funding, and ballot access than either of the established parties receive. As recent example, both Greens and Libertarians received enormously disproportional amounts of coverage (the Greens in particular) after the 2000 election. Why? The percentage of their votes, in many states, was well above the margin between the two primary candidates. Most political analysts believed that the Green Party significantly swung the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, and as a result, they gained more media coverage than anyone could have predicted.
Third parties also gain in less inflammatory ways when they receive more votes. It helps them receive campaign funding from the federal government, for one. A few more votes one year, in many cases, will allow the party to run several more candidates the next. All thanks to more funding. Even more importantly, in many states, more votes are the precursor to ballot access, which in turn helps the party concentrate on campaigning rather than petitioning. Today, ballot access is one of the most pressuring obstacles facing third parties; in states like Georgia, only one third party candidate has ever been on the ballot for the United States House of Representatives.
How does this happen? In Georgia, third parties must submit a petition signed by over 5% of the number of registered voters in the district in order to get on the ballot for any office. When the voter roles haven't been purged in a decade, leaving both dead voters and invalidated voters still listed, the true number in many cases exceeds 10%. Even worse, due to gerrymandering, many third parties have no clue about the final geographical layout of districts, until a month or two prior to the petition deadlines. When the district lines are changed again and again, many petition signatures which were once valid are no longer, since the signatory no longer lives within the correct district. I am digressing substantially from my original purpose, but there is plenty to read regarding ballot access, for those who are interested.
Back to the original topic. We've covered voting for third parties, but if you look closely, does it really matter if we have a Republican or a Democrat president? It's a toss-up to how much they will suck, and it's usually irrelevant what party they're from. Bush hasn't been the best president ever, but Clinton was pretty poor, too. And now, it seems like the two parties are converging. Republicans are creating bureaucracy and spending like crazy. Democrats are opposing gay marriage and won't stop the drug war. As far as I'm concerned, it's two heads of the same hydra.
So go ahead, throw away that vote of yours. I insist.
No comment.
Bush has no power to extend the ban. Congress must approve it in order for him to sign it.
Interestingly, Kerry claims to want to extend it, but I can't find any evidence of him actually introducing a bill in the Senate to do so.
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 modern public corporation can only exist via the state, because only the state can provide the corporation with an abolition of responsibility and the charter of personhood.
Libertarians have nothing against businesses or even big businesses. But libertarians who understand the issue should be against the state chartered corporation. There is no need for government laws to control multinational corporations, instead all you need is an *elimination* of laws, specifically the laws of incorporation. Let the corporation compete fairly with the private business on a level playing field without any state granted mulligans.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I asked him this at a recent speech he gave at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His answer was that our government is the largest polluter in this country. The EPA passes laws that regulate polluters, but all to often coroprations are "grandfathered in" this means they are exempt from these regulations, he would repeal this. He would allow individuals to sue polluters, where for the most part we are not allowed to now. If I live downstream from you and you pollute my water, I would have the right to sue the pants off you. Currently most people don't have this right. This would give polluters more motivation not to pollute then they have now. Right now the government is protecting the polluters. Take away that power from the government and let the people regulate the environment.
You don't need capital to "bootstrap" - you need an education, and a job. These are available, despite the pessimistic wailings of the left. Free scholarships are available to minorities, especially if they are excellent students, and if the left would stop blocking vouchers our "free" public schools could begin to approach the excellence of private schools.
The position of the libertarian party is simply that GRADUATED TAXES ARE NOT FAIR NOR EQUITABLE.
There's a preview of how Badnarik is going to smack you down, though I'm sure he'll do it more eloquently than I.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The long term capital gains tax rate is 15%, substantially lower than the 25, 28, 33, and 35% tax brackets that affect people making $29,000 and up.
...to encourage investing in the long term, something that is not limited to the wealthy (and if it is, how do you think they got that way?)
The Social Security tax, and the hidden employer contribution, is capped at $87,000 income. The people making over $87,000 a year pay proportionately the least to Social Security, will require its benefits the least, and stand the collect the most in payout.
Someone who makes $87K/yr will get the same as $300K/yr because they both put in the same amount. If you make over $87K/year, they figure you can figure out how to save for retirement yourself. Social security is security that you'll be able to live, not enjoy retirement. Personally, I'd rather be able to choose not to contribute at all, and handle my own retirement planning (but don't recommend that for The General Public, because the people are instant gratification-following fools.
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
I'm not going to comment on the others, but I will comment on North Korea.
There isn't any possible solution to North Korea. You have to understand that even if they don't have WMD's, North Korea has an incredible amount of artillery aimed at South Korea. If we invade, we are signing the death warrants for millions of South Koreans. I'm not exaggerating at all, MILLIONS will die. There are over 10 million people living in the city of Seoul, almost 1/4 of South Koreas entire population. They're sitting ducks.
Currently, the policy is "Lets wait for Kim Jong to die or for the North Korean people to revolt". There are no other solutions that don't involve millions of people dying. Kim Jong is batshit insane and unlikely to disarm or back down.
That is why we can attack Iraq but not North Korea.
Everyone on my foe's list is an evolution denier.
However, if it's stability you want, there's nothing more stable than a dictatorship. The purpose of parliamentary systems that use proportional representation and hence rely on coalitions (like in the Irish Republic) is that they are inherently unstable and the government has to watch its step. No sooner does a government put a foot wrong than they get turfed out. It's a check / balance on their power.
However too much instability can also be a bad thing, as the Italian experience shows. There is a happy medium.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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 main point of Libertarianism is to remove these responsibilities from the United States Federal Government.
We live in a nation of many governments, local, state, and of course one federal government.
Why must retirement be a federal program? Why must healthcare?
It would be easy to judge the effectiveness of these social programs if some states are involved and some not.
I would say that most of the tax dollars should be going to the state, not federal government. The federal government can take care of national defense and that would be the most expensive item at the federal level. Just about everything else should go to the state.
If your state wants a healthcare program, then they can do it. If it fails, other states hopefully won't adopt it. Same with retirement.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
When I was working at the Argonne National Laboratory outside of Chicago as a summer intern, tax was not automatically deducted. So, the self-employment tax went into effect because of that. I was only 19, made around $2.5k that summer, and paid almost $900 in taxes total (I'm guessing around 33%). Now I'm 22, and haven't had a job in over a year and a half, and I've been broke for about that long. I went through all the tax forms and found that not even a single dollar out of the thousands I've paid in taxes over the years are returnable. As for social security tax, I don't want social security benefits; but there's no way for me to "opt out". Then, any notion of tax cuts over the decades has lead to the idea that it "benefits the rich". Am I rich?! Right now I make a huge salary of $0/year (but I do little projects here and there for cash).
If I lived a full year in the "self employed" status, and had to pay 33% in taxes (and had a total income of about $12k/yr), I'd be paying over $4k in taxes.
One interesting thing is that when taxes are automatically deducted, it's actually the employer who pays for the taxes, the added social security "employer" part, the benefits, etc. So a person making $30k/yr would be making (guessed values) of around maybe $22 after-tax income, and the added benefits would easily bring the yearly salary paid by the employer to over $45k. So, you get $22k/yr, but the employer pays $45k/yr. Is it fair?
Also relative salary amounts and also the minimum wage principle (which was actually outlined in one of Mussolini's fascist manifesto-like documents) not only cause the less fortunate people to lose jobs (or prevent them from getting jobs), but also place enormous financial burdens on employers (making them want to turn to the federal government establishment for help). For an example, take the minimum wage to the extreme and say it's at $100/hr. With that, most low-end companies (such as restaurants, shops, etc) will all die out. From the employer perspective, if you worked at a restaurant, who would you pay (if anyone at all) $100/hr to work for you? In reality they would only choose the absolute best possible if they could afford it, but normally would not be able to afford such a price/performance ratio. It's kinda like forcing a person to buy 486 computers today for $1,000 each.
If minimum wage is $15/hr let's say, places that normally pay around 7-8/hr would fire all the less skilled employees, and only hire the best. These minimum wage limits sure bring financial equality, don't they? lol. More like financial racism. And do you know who the minimum wage laws usually rule out? Blacks and Hispanics.
That's why I'm for a free market; companies that illegally gain should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Any more thoughts on this?
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
I am considering voting for him, since I'm not impressed with Kerry (Who seems to promise alot without delving into details, and whom I disagree with on many issues) or Bush (Whom I generally agree with on many issues, but the execution of his ideas leaves a lot to be desired, and he still thinks the patriot act is a good idea). I do have some reservations about Badnarik, though. He seems to have an unrealistic view of the free market as the solution to everything. Capitalism is a very good thing, but if you don't understand the situations in which it fails, you're heading for disaster. For instance:
His ideas on free trade seem a little weird:
Maybe we shouldn't regulate trade as much as we do, but dropping all our trade rules would encourage other countries to take advantage of our relaxed policies, and tax trade heavily on their end instead of ours. Free trade requires mutual cooperation between countries, just like peace.
In terms of electricity, this is nonsense. If one entity controls the power lines coming into my house, and can charge whatever it likes, my power bills would certainly increase. PUDs exist for a reason. Having multiple electricity providers is expensive and unnecessary, but a single provider with no rules restricting its behavior would overcharge its customers and provide terrible service. Regulation of industry is sometimes a necessary evil.
Does he think that a terrorist group planning an attack on the United States might stop and say "Hey, maybe we should leave the US alone, because I like Pepsi and Macdonalds"? That seems a little naive. Has any country ever not attacked a neighbor because they're a convenient source of some useful product? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious.) Certainly the reverse happens quite alot - countries are attacked because the aggressor wants to take their resources. And what's wrong with foreign aid? Can't we do something nice for people once in awhile? We certainly could use a better reputation as a country.
The quotes come from a wikipedia article. I agree with Badnarik on most other issues, but he still seems to take an extreme stance sometimes that appears to be the product of an overly simplistic view of the way the world works (something almost everyone is guilty of at times). Maybe I'm taking his statements out of context. If so, someone please correct me.
-jim
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?
"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.
Really? Thier plan is to get into the debates that is an odd thing considering what was done to them in 92. The libertarians had the target to get into the debates moved at least three times IIRC, each time they met the new goals the two parties moved then, the last time refusing to tell them the goals. I still remember going to the protest outside Wash U. here in St. Louis after hearing about that. I figured any party the two majors feared that much was worth finding out about.
What I'd like to know what has changed to make them believe the two majors would let them into the debates and not play shell games with the rules like they did in 1992 to shut them out of the debates.
The above paragraph is my suggested question.
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea