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

First Question

[Oculus Habent]

Other than winning, what hopes do you have for the Libertarian Party in the 2004 election?

Re:First Question

[Rei]

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?"

Re:First Question

[Rei]

Or, also:

"While it is certainly true that a flat tax would be easier to calculate, are you concerned with its effect on the poor? More specifically, since the poor benefit more in comparison to their tax burden from government programs funded by this money, it would seem like the primary effect would be to increase the disparity of wealth in America, leaving the poor with even less capital to afford "bootstrapping". As America already has the greatest wealth disparity in the industrialized world, are you not concerned about a decrease in social mobility and the general situation of the poor from such a tax plan?"

Re:First Question

[DuckDodgers]

1. 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.

2. 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.

I'm not a flat tax advocate - I'm just pointing out that thanks to long term capital gains and Social Security our current system often taxes the middle class proportionately more than the rich.

Re:First Question

[Golias]

Asking a question like, "do you feel like you even have a chance of winning?" ammounts to pretty much the same thing as asking him, "are you a complete nut-job with no connection to reality?"

The question I want to ask is:

Most small third-parties usually set the bar at getting a 5% result or better in as many states as they can, because in most states that usually means "major party" status, which often comes with some public election finance money that will set them up with a better chance for future elections. Since the Libertarian Party officially rejects the concept of public financing of elections, what are your goals for this election, and what do you hope to gain by reaching them?

Re:First Question

[not_a_witch]

As much as I would also like to have answers for serious issues like the one you mentioned here, I think it is entirely relevant to ask a third party candidate how he hopes to be taken seriously. I discuss the "wasted vote" issue with people on a regular basis. The country's mentality is keeping us locked into a two-party system and until steps are taken to counteract this overwhelming obstacle, the issues I would so love to discuss may have to take a back seat to questions of political practicality.

Re:First Question

[operagost]

I'm sure you think you're clever, but you're just parading out the same old tired left-wing party line. The assumption made by socialists seems to be that a sort of involuntary charity must be forced onto the "rich" (that is, anyone with a steady job) to keep the poor afloat. There are many, many non-profit orgs out there that could easily do the work of most government programs. In fact, many of them performed these functions for decades before the government foisted its inefficient bulk upon the tax payers.

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.

Re:First Question

[Rei]

>There are many, many non-profit orgs out there that
> could easily do the work of most government programs.

In such a political environment, the result is almost always the same: The poor starve in the street. No "non-profit org" can, and ever will be able to, provide for the healthcare needs of to those too poor to afford it, for example.

> You don't need capital to "bootstrap" - you need an education, and a job

LAUGH! Did you even stop and think about what you posted?

1) A job: *Statistically*, you need an education to get a good job (I don't want to hear special cases, only general cases). It is *possible* to get a good job without an education, but not nearly as likely, for a wide variety of reasons.

2) An education: *Statistically*, you need *money* to get a good education (again, no special cases). It is *possible* to get a good education when you're poor, but not nearly as likely, for a wide variety of reasons.

I certainly hope Badnarik does a better job on this than you, and doesn't resort to the "It's possible!" line. Yes, it's possible. It's also not bloody likely, something I've never seen a Libertarian address. They always resort to the same tired-old "possiblility" lines, instead of addressing the general case.

Re:First Question

[miltimj]

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.

Re:First Question

[jadavis]

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.

Re:First Question

[eventhorizon5]

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

Re:First Question

[jadavis]

This argument does not stand up very well in my eyes. Are taxes on "the rich" too low? How about we make the taxes 100%? 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?

It's a fact that when you tax investments more, people invest less. The only way new jobs are created is by investment.

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%. If either of those happen, tax revenue is $0. Time and time again, tax rates are reduced and tax revenue is increased.

You accounted for none of these factors, so your implication that taxes should not be reduced in some brackets carries no weight at all.

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).

Re:First Question

[feepness]

As America already has the greatest wealth disparity in the industrialized world, are you not concerned about a decrease in social mobility and the general situation of the poor from such a tax plan?

An extremely simple alternative to both flat and income tax is to use a national sales tax and then automatically refund money to every single person in the US. IE: overtax people at the register by an AVERAGE of (let's say, purely arbitrarily) $1K per person. Then refund that to the taxpayers.

The multi-billionaire gets $1,000 back on the $10,000,0000 he paid in taxes.

The working poor gets $1,000 back on the $500 he paid in taxes.

This is ridiculously simply, as progressive as you want it to be (simply fiddle with two numbers, sales tax rate, and refund amount -- higher refund = more progressive). And anyone can immediately look at their income/spending and eyeball their overall tax burden. People with similar incomes and spending habits will always have the SAME tax burden. What a concept!

Of course, it will never happen with the Republicrats in office.

Vote independent!!!

Re:First Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians would abolish the income tax and not replace it with anything.

You wouldn't need an income tax (or the majority of all other taxes for that matter.) if government were bound by its Constitutional limitations.

Jim Grichar has quite a lenghty discussion of the billions and billions of dollars that need to be cut. An easy $656 billion/year could be cut right now. And that doesn't even take us back to Constitutional restrictions.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/ grichar35.html

We don't support a flat tax, or fair tax, or any kind of other replacement tax. Cut government spending, borrowing, and taxing, and the poor would currently have more money, and rich corporations wouldn't be protected by regulation, corporate welfare, and protectionist tarrifs.

Tracy

Re:First Question

[True Grit]

Yea, it does sound flippant. You see, child labor is now *illegal* in the US under Federal Law. Your link is to a report showing compliance and enforcement efforts by the states. In the "Good Ole' Days" the OP is referring to, child labor was legal and occurring on a massive scale. Robber Barons got filthy rich on the blood, sweat, and tears of 10 year olds.

I do agree that in many places of the world things are still like the "Good Ole' Days" that the US had, and I also agree there are unethical American companies willing to exploit overseas child labor, but I consider that to be a symptom of the Psychopathic Corporation, not specific to any country.

Re:First Question

[Mycroft_VIII]

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.

Re:First Question

[Dyolf Knip]

Not bad, you managed to totally miss the point.

AFAIK, it would work like this.
1) Do away with the IRS and as much of Social Security as possible.
2) Institute a flat federal sales tax, maybe 5-10%(?). The same untaxed exceptions on things like food still apply. This would give an overall sales tax in the same ballpark as Britain's VAT. 3) Estimate how much taxable money was needed for the average Joe to survive each year, and then figure out how much of that he spent in taxes.
4) Refund him some >1 multiple of that amount.

The important thing is that while net prices would increase across the board, most people would not only get back ~20% of their income that they had previously lost to on-income taxes, they'd get paid _another_ 10% or so with employers not having to match social security payments. The net result is less government spending, simpler and more efficient tax collection, more _progressive_ taxation (oh the irony), and greater disposable income.

Throw in the stated Libertarian agendas of reducing military spending and ending the War on Drugs and you've got yourself a hundred-billion dollar decrease in spending right there.

Still some questions left to be sorted out. For instance, does the refund apply if you don't work at all, or only part time, or whatever? And would a federal tax apply to interstate (e.g., Internet) commerce?

Re:First Question

[nbowman]

Social Security is 15% (up to ~90K/year) by itself (assuming you are self employed, which would be thier other choice) Medicare is another 9% (OK, not actually positive about this, its been a year since I have done payroll) or so, so its even more than you assume. And then there are loopholes: "need" a new Mercedes? (better still a Hummer, those are a big tax write off) Have the company buy it, and write it as an expense, so it comes out of pre tax income. Do similar things with other purchases. Yeah, the current tax system is SOooo fair.

Question

[sethadam1]

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!

Re:Question

[celeritas_2]

How about: How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple canidates and not just two?

Re:Question

[dougmc]

How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple canidates and not just two?

That's actually pretty easy. 1) you require that the winner be elected by 50+% of the vote, rather than just a simple majority, and 2) You allow people to vote for (or rank) multiple candidates, with varying ways of handling these votes depending on the exact plan.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general idea. I don't see this ever getting passed in the US, but it's certainly possible to set up an election where you can vote for the 3rd party candidate and yet your vote isn't really wasted.

Re:Question

[lucabrasi999]

Honestly, it's not a good idea to have a multi-party system.

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.

Re:Question

[TykeClone]

A 3rd party can win in the US. Look at Jessie "The Governor" Ventura of Minnesota - he won as a third party candidate.

Even in Presidential elections, third parties have won. The Republicans started out as the anti-slave party in the mid-1800's and won the Presidency.

The problem with third parties is that they're X-Lite - where X = Republican or Democrats. And that they are typically one issue horses - so they have trouble getting people to buy-in.

In Minnesota, Ventura ran as a different candidate. He already had name recognition (which is important), and was running against the liberal republican candidate and the even more liberal DFL candidate. He differentiated himself from the other candidates and was able to win.

There's no reason why the libertanian candidate can't win - but saying "Pot should be legal" and "there should be no regulation with no middle ground" (which is what that party is perceived to stand for) won't win it. They need to do better.

Re:Question

[tsa]

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.

Re:Question

[TapTapTheChisler]

They're called the Borda and Single Transferrable Vote systems. Take a gander: http://www.deakin.edu.au/fac_buslaw/sch_aef/public ations/wp/wp2201.pdf

Re:Question

[Hard_Code]

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.

Re:Question

[ghostlibrary]

> 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.

Re:Question

[killjoe]

JUst have a instant runoff type of election and you'll take care of the whole thing. There are lots of alternatives to winner take all all of them are possible to implement TODAY. It's just that the major parties will never agree to them.

The solution goes like this.

1) An independent party selects a really popular celebrity so they can win an election in a state.
2) The new governor institutes an alternative voting system for all state ballots and maybe even national ones if he can get away with it.
3) Once the people get empowered they will scream at the feds till get the same thing.
4) Rinse and repeat in each state.

Re:Question

[fiannaFailMan]

it's not a good idea to have a multi-party system

Why? Just about every other democracy in the world has one. The beauty of multi-party systems is that is the biggest party gets less than an overall majority, they have to form a coalition. The reason this would be difficult to implement in the USA is that a lot of the power lies in the hands of the President who has to be elected directly, and electoral systems like Single Transferable Voting (aka Proportional Representation) don't lend themselves to elections where a single post is open. Preferential voting is probably the answer there, then there'll be no votes wasted.

Re:Question

[demachina]

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.

Re:Question

[Phleg]

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.

Re:Question

[squiggleslash]

In a sense, informally, the US has a modified version of that system for Presidential races. American voters get to choose the right/left candidates from a cast of tens (in the primaries), and then get to choose which one they want as the actual President.

It's not perfect, but the notion that the choice is completely between two candidates who have come from nowhere tends to be exaggerated by most who argue that.

Re:Question

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

They won because they had starred in The Predator. Carl Weathers will become govenor of some eastern state by 2016.

Re:Question

[Maltheus]

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.'

Given that conservatives are for smaller government, I'll never understand this sentiment. If we were conservative, we'd probably have much better relations with the world since our government wouldn't have trillions of dollars to impose it's will upon the world. I guess the English actually believe George Bush when he claims to be a conservative. And if they believe that, I have some weapons of mass distruction to sell them. ;-)

I guess people are so often confused because we have a mix of socialist and fascist trends in our society. The largest corporate interests petition to government to socialize portions of the economy (ex. heavy regulations) in order to eliminate the competetion. Then they use their new status as monopolists (or blatant colluders) to order the government to do their bidding (ie. wars, anti-union laws, tax breaks, or to direct govt. spending their way). So now we have fewer companies in control of more assets, which undermines capitalism, and we have a behemoth state that becomes the world's largest consumer. That's not a bad thing if the money were directed towards infrastructure (ie, roads, schools, etc.) or capital investments, but we spend it on war, bribes and bureaucracy. We are not at all conservative economically or politically.

War and Christrianity, does not a conservative make. War-mongering christians are just the voting block that republicans have targeted, whereas the democrats have gone after immigrants and hedonists. The voting block does not make the label, the ideology does.

Re:Question

[carlivar]

There's no reason why the libertanian candidate can't win - but saying "Pot should be legal" and "there should be no regulation with no middle ground" (which is what that party is perceived to stand for) won't win it. They need to do better.

The LP position on drug legalization is simply an application of their principles. This is how all political parties are supposed to be, right?

For everyone's benefit, here is the LP's Statement of Principles, from my membership card:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Italics are from original, not added.

It is left as an exercise to the reader to apply above principles to various current issues, such as the aforementioned drug legalization, gay marriage, social security, universal health care, gun control, etc.

I think what you are really saying above is that the LP is too principled to win. Only wishy-washy centrists are able to win major political elections. I don't disagree, but I will still proudly vote LP this November and in every other election I can get my hands on, and feel happy that I voted for a candidate that matches my viewpoint exactly.

Okay, a little off-topic ranting there, but I can't help it!

Carl

Re:Question

[fiannaFailMan]

I'd rather have a stable presidential system than an unstable, ever-collapsing parliamentary one, like the UK or Israel.

The UK system is pretty stable actually. In general elections there it is effectively a two-party system. The Liberal Democrats are a long way off overtaking the Conservatives as the main opposition party, although with the collapse in conservatism in the UK, maybe they're not far off.

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.

Re:Question

[hibiki_r]

From an outsider POV, Bush is a pro-war, pro-christian, pro-rich people kind of candidate. In most of Europe, those are conservative traits. He's also in favor of big government and ignores deficits, but he's good enough at PR to hide those facts from many people. Of course he's not really economically conservative, but it's all about how he appears to be, not about how his policies really go.

Re:Question

[jadavis]

What's most important to libertarians is to limit the scope of the federal government.

Local governments, and to a lesser extent state governments, are more controllable than the federal government.

I think it would be great to have a libertarian in federal office. It's not like he will make it illegal for states to have such laws/programs.

Under Badnarik (Congress willing), Medical Marijuana would be legal here in California.

Re:Question

[sploxx]

This seems to be a problem everywhere.
The "drift to the center" also occurs here in germany. Actually, there is now a movement to form a new party left to one of germany's two big parties (SPD) because some people are annoyed. It's probably a matter of time before the other end of the political spectrum will be extended, too...

I don't really know how election campaigns are fought in the U.S. (But US foreign policy is an important issue worldwide, i.e.
many people here are very interested in your november elections); But in our political system, I see at least one problem in a too "cost/benefit"-worried campaign. It seems that political agendas are mainly formed as follows:

1. Parties order polls about controversial issues.
2. The polls are evaluated and costs are associated to each issue, with mainly the following factors taken into the equation:
a) importance of the issue for the general public (i.e. number of votes lost/gained for yes/no to the particular issue)
b) importance of the issue to the members of the party (a political party can't bear with a massive member loss)
3. The political agenda will be written according to the scores given by the evaluation of the polls.

Especially a) leads to a equalization of political agendas. And it seems that b) gets less and less important if one iterates this process because party members are gradually replaced with new ones from the public (which is preconditioned by very similar agendas). At the same time, many people get frustated about politics.

IMHO, this is what you get if you run a political party like you should run a company, only with votes instead of money.

Re:Question

[killjoe]

"We need less policy and more freedom. Libertarian."

This is the primary delusion of the liberterian. They believe that less policy means more freedom. Less policy may mean more liberty (that is freedom from government) but it means less freedom when other powerful organization can run amok without oversight or bounds. Sure the government won't be able to tell you what to do but when the neighborhood thugs come by your house to demand protection money or when your children are sick from salmonella or when the corporations have denied you the right to own anything it's not going to help you much.

Re:Question

[Azghoul]

You're a fool (and a presumtuous one at that. "They", indeed) if you think the libertarian position leads logically to "thugs coming by your house demanding protection money".

You should read a few libertarian publications and learn something before dismissing them out of hand.

There's nothing in the libertarian philosophy that prevents a government from stopping the abuses you describe: It's quite clear that people must be protected from other people. The Federal government is doing far too much more than that now, of course.

Obviously you'll have a number of hard-core libertarians who are more like anarchists than anything. But you'll find wackos in every party. I'm not sure why you think the libertarian thinkers are more wacko than the rest.

Finally, a libertarian leader would never get all his "dreams" passed. But whose to say leaning that way wouldn't help? Start somewhere, work towards freedom.

Personal Responsible Corporations?

[FriedTurkey]

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?

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[lucabrasi999]

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?

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[sdjunky]

"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?

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[finkployd]

I wonder if the idea of a corporation as being it's own citizen is nonlibertarian, in which case they could just say that the individuals involved in the scandal could all be individually sued by the people they wrongfully ripped off.

Cop out answer or not, that is my opinion. And I consider myself a Libertarian (or more accurately, that is the party most closely aligned with my opinions)

The whole idea of limited liability seems stupid to me. Imagine the accountibility inside of corporations if everyone was responsible for covering their own butt, and not just hiding behind a corporate veil. Whistleblowers would get to these Enron type of things much quicker because when it is your ass on the line legally, turning a blind eye just to keep your job a little longer is not a good option.

Finkployd

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[Enry]

If one exchange got a reputation for listing untrustworthy companies, they would lose credibility.

Once a company gets large enough (MSFT, Wal-Mart, IBM, Monsanto, RIAA/MPAA members, etc.), there's no reason for said company to be good. If one division gets the company in PR trouble, its losses can be propped up by other divisions.

Want to boycott a company? Fine. They're better off without you as a customer calling them to complain than they make as a profit for having you as a customer. Even people who boycotted Disney for their pro-gay HR policies admitted it is really hard to tell a child that they can't go to Disneyworld or get the latest Mickey Mouse DVD. The RIAA/MPAA can easily spin sales numbers to say that their losses are not from boycotts, but from piracy.

In a world where a company relies on YOU as a customer, then image would matter. It doesn't anymore. And while I like many of the ideals that libertarians have, I don't think they have completely thought through the consequenses of their platform.

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[Marlor]

Similarly, in the Libertarian worldview, why is "Big Government" bad, while "Big Corporations" are fine. Ideally power shouldn't be centralized, but if it is going to be centralized somewhere, shouldn't it be in an institution that is directly accountable to the people, i.e. the Government?

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[thefirelane]

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?

• 1) Not all government regulation must entirely disappear under Libertarian ideas, this is a grey area... we can debate about where to put the stopping point, but we all agree that the start needs to happen
• 2) Other posters have mentioned that there would be many 'private SECs'... these people apparently don't know much about current corporate auditing as they are describing nearly an identical system
• 3) I would like to show that Enron was caused by government regulation, and would have been stopped if there were less government regulation: Back in the day, rich people invested in stocks. They owned shares of companies that made money. When a company made money, it divided this money among its owners (shareholders) and mailed it to them in the form of dividends. One day some government genius said "Look at this, this is a massive form of income and it is only being used by rich people. Therefore, we can tax this, and only tax the rich people, it is a great new source of income!". This was done, and the tax on dividends went up. Now the rules of the game have changed, so it will not be played the same way as in the past. Under the new system, it is cheaper to sell off shares for a profit. Companies realize they can still distribute the money to their investors, but they do so by buying their own shares with their profits (or just sit on the profits). This causes the outstanding share value to rise, allowing the current share holders to sell the shares and get their money under the less heavily taxed capital gains rate.
  
  The problem now, is that the emphasis is shifted to raising the share price. The share price can be raised through dubious means, which is how Enron happened. If the system were not messed with, Enron could not happen, because if the CEO said "we have just made X billion dollars" investors would then rightly say "ok, fine send me a check". This can not be faked. Investors become the regulators, and they can decide to call back their money (dividends) or re-invest it in the company (by letting them keep it).

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[Hatta]

How about eliminating corporations entirely? Corporate law is just a layer of legal junk that obscures what's really happening, interactions between individuals. We intuitively understand what's fair between individuals, corporations are legal fictions. I don't see a reason to keep them at all.

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[bluprint]

In the Libertarian worldview, there is nothing wrong with people making money, or having lots of employees under "normal means" (generally, not violating someone elses private property rights and acting according to contractual agreements). However, in the Libertarian worldview, "Big Corporations" as we know them in modern times, are subsidized and can only exist through "Big Government". That is a problem. The subsidies come in the form of a normal subsidy, cash, as well as things that aren't technically subsidies, but have the same affect, such as (I don't know how to make bullets, and don't care to look it up right now):

market protection - such as IP rights and trade protections such as tarriffs

liability protection -- the people in a company are frequently not responsible for the acts of the company itself, which is a bit ridiculous considering the company doesn't have the ability to make any decisions. So, individuals are essentially allowed to make decisions they won't be held responsible for. This is a direct result of government intervention/regulation.

Big corporations as they are now only exist via government. Without the government giving the blessings they do, corporations would take a much different form (I imagine) at the most, and at the least wouldn't allow individuals involved in those corporations to seperate themselves from the decisions they make.

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[Coryoth]

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?

Well, the first step is to make sure all the media channels are owned by various large corporate groups with vaguely similar agendas. Breaking news of corporate scandals is only worthwhile if it is a direct competitor - general corporate scandals will only make the consumers more suspicious of what you're up to.

Oh, I'm sorry, by intelligently you didn't mean for the benefit of large corporations?

Free markets work well, and are decently self regulating when those involved and making decisions are well informed. To be well informed you need information. As long as we continue down the road toward all information being owned, we are treading down a road where those that have the financial power to own the information also have the power to skew and manipulate the market.

Note that I an not claiming that all information must be free either - merely that, at the least, a balance needs to be struck, even if that balance is simply the acceptance and wider use of Copyleft style licenses.

Jedidiah

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[carlivar]

Similarly, in the Libertarian worldview, why is "Big Government" bad, while "Big Corporations" are fine. Ideally power shouldn't be centralized, but if it is going to be centralized somewhere, shouldn't it be in an institution that is directly accountable to the people, i.e. the Government?

Speaking for myself personally, that's easy. If I decide to boycott the government, by refusing to pay Social Security for instance, someone will eventually show up at my house with a gun to make me do it or send me to prison.

But I am perfectly free to boycott McDonald's, Mitsubishi, Exxon, or whatever company I choose.

I think it's funny that there will be thousands of people out there in November passionately voting for John Kerry because they think Bush is bad for the environment... then they'll drive away in their Mitsubishi car. Mitsubishi is one of the worst contributors in the world to rain forest destruction.

Carl

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[Firethorn]

Actually, that'd tend to put you in democrat territory.

Libertarians disagree with republicans more on social issues, siding with the democrats, while they disagree with the democrats on economic issues, siding more with the republicans.

This is a vast simplification, as the Libertarian party is likely to strike off into their own territory at any time, disagreeing with both.

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[thefirelane]

Point 1 is just wishy-washy thought.

Wrong. Point 1 is important. Your reply only stems from your 1 dimensional view of politics (left/right). I know this is a tired old argument, and many people are sick of Libertarians 'educating' them. In this case it is necessary though: Republicans want less government (will they ever do it?) and a more restrictive social environment (pro-life, war on drugs, no gay rights, etc..). This does not suit many peoples view and therefore they look for others.

Yeah, coporate auditing is nice, but it can't replace the SEC. Look at Arthur Andersen.

Interesting that you critic my logic, then say something like this. Let me summarize: We can't get rid of X, because X failed and so did Y. (Enron happened under both groups watch).
My point is three-fold

• Expecting any system to work 100 percent is foolish, and often leads to less desirable outcomes. With Arthur Anderson, they are toast now. All the other accounting firms are covering their collective arses as well, because they don't want to go down like Anderson, therefore they regulate the company better because they are held responsible.
• With Arthur Anderson, they were hired by an extension of the shareholders for auditing. This means, even when they did a crappy job, they were still charging the shareholders (as that is who owns Enron). If the shareholders didn't think they were getting a good deal, they could have gotten new auditors (how would they know, more on that later).
  This means however, that all money paid to Arthur Anderson was paid voluntarily by the shareholders, as no one is forcecd to own Enron stock. The distinction here is very important, because you can not voluntarily pay the SEC (taxes). This means you have no choice, even if you want nothing to to with stocks, or can't afford them. Therefore all the poor are paying taxes to support a regulatory agency that protects just the rich. If rich people want to be protected, they should hire their own auditors (protectors).
• How would Arthur Anderson know how to audit Enron? Accounting would become much more simplified if a dividend system were used for paying shareholders. This is because of all the other complicated schemes that are developed to do so in the current system (stock buy back, re-investment, etc).
• To respond to you Point 3 'points':
  • Saying that is so does not make it so, please give examples. Furthermore, even if somehow dividends were faked, the investor still has money in the bank instead of the memories of '$100 a share stock that they were supposed to know to sell because that bounce was their dividend'. My basic premise is Enron could not have happened if they were expected to mail everyone $1.75 a share when they said that's what they made. I suppose they could have written 'hot checks' to everyone, but seriously. I also suppose they could have continued as they did, but merely paid out money while hiding debt. This has problems in two places: 1) This is much less sustainable, as I've said before because you actually have to pay money instead of saying you have it. 2) It favors investors, as they then get money in the bank... whereas Enron favored those at the top with insider knowledge.
  • Yes, indeed they should, and this is the prerogative of the shareholders. My point was just that they should just have the option of getting dividends. You reply is basically "sometimes they shouldn't do that, so they should never have that option", and does not make logical sense.
  • Again, my argument was not that dividends should not be taxed, it was more that they should not be taxed more than other income. Doing so causes companies to use more convoluted ways to transfer wealth to their shareholders that only further alienates the small investor who can't know the intricacies of what is going on, therefore more often than not they get stuck holding the bag.
    
    I am int

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations?

[Pseudonym]

There is pretty much no way you can have a monopoly in a free market, [...]

Sure you can. Take the international diamond market, for example. DeBeers is a monopoly, because gem-quality diamonds can really only be obtained from one geographic location, and they have property rights over the location. OPEC is another example. People want a lot of oil, most of it is in the hands of a small number of producers, therefore an oligopoly develops.

Any time there is scarcity, a monopoly or oligopoly may develop. Free markets only remove scarcity when the scarcity is due to government interference. If the scarcity is due to corporations controlling the supply, then libertarianism won't help at all.

Why do you bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Why do you bother?

[gfxguy]

From lp.org:

Over 600 Libertarians are serving in public office -- more than all other third parties combined.

Baby steps...

are some free trade restrictions necessary?

[toasted_calamari]

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?

Re:are some free trade restrictions necessary?

[tafinucane]

How can we prevent the propagation of Multinational corporations without resorting to government regulation?

Asking a liberterian this question is like asking a member of the NRA "You say the right to bear arms will not be infringed; if they aren't infringed, how can we prevent gun ownership?"

Re:are some free trade restrictions necessary?

[Brandybuck]

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.

Re:are some free trade restrictions necessary?

[kingpin2k]

Mod this up. People believe that libertarians are like republicans in that both love big business. Brandybuck hits it on the head. Libertarians believe in real personal responsibility, not in state protection for businesses.

Where are we headed?

[QuantumRiff]

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 OS do you use?

[GillBates0]

Seriously, though I know what the answer is likely to be. Politicians probably have bigger things to care about, But this is /.

Why should I waste my vote on you.

[nlinecomputers]

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?

Re:Why should I waste my vote on you.

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

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.

Re:Why should I waste my vote on you.

[scorp1us]

Who will your electorial votes go to? I love in MD which is solid Democrat. I can vote fro either of the two parties and not have much utility in my vote.

OR I can vote for the 3rd party. if 5% of everyone votes for the 3rd party, then they get increased funding. Eventually, the 3rd party will be large enough to cause concern. At that point, theother parties realize that they are in jeopardy, that the american public is dissatified witht he existing paries.

In MD, our governor is libertarian, but is on the republical ballot. He ran as a Republican and is the 1st republican governor in over 25 years. We have 5 libertarians serving in public offices. Libertarians are the 3rd larget political party in the US.

Libertarians are becoming a formitable party.

Re:Why should I waste my vote on you.

[lothar97]

In general, when votes go to a particular party, they get more power. In Europe, we see majority coalitions in parliaments formed in this manner.

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.

Re:Why should I waste my vote on you.

[Rei]

My biggest problem with the libertarian stance is this: while it is certainly possible for the poor to go to college, and it is certainly possible for the poor to start a business, it isn't likely. In fact, statistically it is very unlikely. All people are unfortunately not created equal from birth, and that greatly affects their chances of ending up educated and wealthy.

My question to Badnarik is this: Since it, in general, takes money to make money, doesn't this imply that the poor are going to be severely disadvantaged by their birth? 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? Otherwise, it seems to be just a way to allow "freeloading" - i.e., if your parents were wealthy, odds are you'll be wealthy too, whether you work hard or not.

Re:Why should I waste my vote on you.

[Hatta]

The best way to waste your vote is to cast it for one of the two major parties.

Re:Why should I waste my vote on you.

[euclid manatee]

In a Libertarian world . . . you would only be limited by how much the banks were willing to give you. Since, in this world, the banks would see you as an investment, they would be willing to loan money sufficient to get through school to those they deemed the most likely to repay it (eg--those who were going into the highes paying jobs).

. . . which then would cause a dramatic drop in the number of people who are able to attend college and better themselves. Which is why the student loan program was developed in the first place.

So the poor would still be able to go to college, and they would have to earn it (grades would matter!).

What grades? From what school?

In an ideal Libertarian world, there are no free public schools for the poor. There are then no scholarships to earn, no magical loans from banks to take out, and -- in short -- no future in higher education.

For the rest: how many people would realistically qualify for full books/tuitions/room/board loans to private universities?

The world you've described is just a description of the US before public schools, public universities, public libraries, public roads, public anything, where there were fewer opportunities for the lower classes.

I'm not saying private investment is a bad thing, just that in a country of 265 million people, there need to be systems with the sole purposes of serving the greater good, not making profit. Otherwise, the US will turn into South America.

Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Badnarik, as president, would you support breaking up monopolies such as Microsoft to enable competition?

Thank you.

Re:Regulation

[Sanity]

I'm not Badnarik, nor am I a Libertarian, but if I might guess at his answer, it would likely be "no". Libertarians hate antitrust law, they blame all abusive monopolies on government interference, and think that if the government would just stay out of it it would all work out.

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.

Re:Regulation

[Phleg]

ESR wrote a very insightful piece on exactly this.

In my experience

[iamdrscience]

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.

Re:In my experience

[Senjutsu]

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.

This is the most succinct expression of my feelings towards the libertarian party I have ever read. Oh, to have mod points right now...

Re:In my experience

[mothz]

That brings up an interesting point. Candidates from the mainstream political parties vary in their personal opinions. For example, there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, Democrats who oppose gay marriage, Republicans who don't want to privatize Social Security, and Democrats who support(ed) the war on Iraq.

The smaller, up-and-coming parties are still trying to develop a public identity and carve a niche for themselves. As such, these candidates tend to be more closely aligned with the official party ideals. Do you feel that these strong ideals make third-party candidates seem too extreme to much of the public? What can your party do to impress voters who are more pragmatic?

Re:In my experience

[WindBourne]

It is a strange paradigm to some. One answer is that the LP party or you are crazy.

However, a better answer is that we go back to the fringes to prevent errosion of all the other principles. Think in terms of how for 200 years, the right of free speech or the right to own and carry guns was so vehmitly defended. The problem is that as soon as errosion starts, it is hard to stop. The patriot act was fairly intrusive, but no where near what the patriot act II is (it was passed on the day that Sadaam's capture was announced; Interesting that it passed both houses and the presendcy all in the same day as a rider on another bill). Likewise, over the last few decades there has been constant pressure to remove our right to own and carry guns.

While I can see value to public sidewalks, the problem is where do you stop?

Re:In my experience

[robochan]

...The problem is, the parts that I don't agree with seem absolutely batshit insane (i.e. privatizing sidewalks? WTF?)....

Really.
How is that any more/less "batshit insane" than taking the country to war under false pretenses or trying to categorize ketchup as a vegetable or calling fast-food workers manufacturing jobs or attempting to rewrite the United States Constitution so that it outlaws gay marriage?

Induce our vote

[tod_miller]

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)

PATRIOT act

[keiferb]

What's your view on the Patriot act? What, if any, parts do you think need to be changed, and why?

Re:PATRIOT act

[joebolte]

Come on, this is directly covered on his website among other places. Let's ask a question to which we don't already know the answer.

Obstacles (2 questions)

[goldspider]

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?

You know you can't win

[ellem]

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)?

Re:You know you can't win

[Coryoth]

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.

Re:You know you can't win

[akgunkel]

I'm voting Libertarian because I want neither Bush nor Kerry to be President. I can't make a "lesser of two evils" vote because I honestly can't decide which of them is more vile. Not voting would just send the message that I don't care.

Re:You know you can't win

[Maltheus]

I am so fed up with you people. First off, let me say that I am a staunch conservative and I think Bush is the worst president this nation has ever had. I wouldn't vote for him if I had a gun to my head. Kerry promises to do the same things that Bush is doing. When a candidate promises to do something bad, you can rest assured that those are the only promises they intend to keep.

To me, there is no difference between Kerry and Bush and I'm sick to death of this "game" of picking the lesser or two evils every election. If you vote for the least of two evils, then you are voting for evil. You are giving your mandate for evil to rule you. So if Kerry gets elected and goes to war with Iran (or whomever he goes to war with because I GUARANTEE you he will), then YOU are partly responsible for those dead soldiers and civilians. YOU become responsible for the reduced security that this nation will then face.

As for balance of power between the branches, the founders didn't mean it to be balance of power between the republicans and democrats, they meant the actual branches of government. Most of the republicans and democrats (incl. Kerry) threw these balances out the window when they let the president go to war without a congressional declaration (required by constitution). Democrats support measures like the "authorization for force", because they know that their time will come again (because of people like you) and they don't want to be bound by the constitution any more than the republicans do.

Kerry and Bush share the same beliefs on most major issues. They're both Skull & Bones members (both admitted this on Meet the Press), which is a luciferian society that Hitler belonged to. They're even distant cousins, connected through the British throne. The powers that be set up this system to guarantee that they'll stay in power, while at the same time, giving you the illusion of a choice in how you're ruled. Meanwhile, the true left and right in this country stay divided (and conquered) and those at the top swing the pedulum in such a way as to ensure it lands wherever they want it to. The left becomes satiated when a democrat comes into office and the right becomes satiated when a republican comes into office. It doesn't matter if Clinton dismantles welfare or Bush dramatically inflates government, it's all an illusion for the suckers.

Here's an idea, don't vote at all unless you truly support who you're voting for. A slut cannot claim to value their virginity when they'll sleep with anyone. Nor can a voter value their privelge but saying, "I'll vote for X because he can't be as bad a Y." THAT'S true voter apathy. However, if enough people stop voting, then our leaders can claim no mandate over us. We then have the right to reject the massive debt they pile upon us. Election monitors deem elections illegitimate if they have something like less than 30% of the potential electorate voting. That is a number we should strive for. Only then can we speak of serious reform.

What happens to people who fall between the cracks

[zzyzx]

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.

odd background for a presidential candidate.

[Eric Seppanen]

Some background information: Dark Horse on the Third Ballot

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

...He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which leads to a valid interview question: why does the LP insist on associating itself with kooks?

One Lyndon LaRouche is enough, already.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate.

[Peyna]

U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Is that a good enough explanation?

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate.

[Chess_the_cat]

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax.

This guy is an idiot. The Sixteenth Amendment gives the IRS authority:

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.

If that's not enough this pdf clearly outlines where the IRS gets it's authority and why US citizens must pay income tax.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate.

[Compuser]

He's got my vote now. That is an awesome program.

That said, even if you feel the Libertarians are
kooks, vote for them if you want smaller government...
precisely because they won't win. If a substantial
number of people vote this way the "mainstream"
parties will shift to get that demographic.
Although I don't know if I'll ever forgive the
Republicans for bailing out on the contract with
America. Where is my balanced budget Amendment?
Not done yet? Well fuck you, you don't get my
vote, it's libertarian from now on.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate.

[Paladin128]

Yes, but the US government had to add the 16th ammendment to collect income tax. Before that, the wording you quote only specifies duties, imposts, and excise. The ambiguous word "taxes" doesn't allow for the form of tax collection we have today.

There is much evidence that the 16th ammendment was NEVER RATIFIED by congress. It should be repealed, and the federal government should have NO power to tax individuals directly. Excise and tariffs can support a libertarian form of government.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate.

[Peyna]

There is much evidence that the 16th ammendment was NEVER RATIFIED by congress.

Congress doesn't ratify amendments, the states do. Give me your evidence that it was never ratified. I assure you it had long been put to rest that it was ratified, and the Supreme Court has addressed the issue numerous times and each time concluded that it was properly ratified. Thus, Congress has the power to levy an income tax.

The argument that the Amendment was not properly ratified is based on that the States did not all receive exactly replicas of the text of the Amendment (some things being as trivial as capitalization, misspellings, etc.) If similar rules are applied to other Amendments, women would not have the right to vote, black people might still only be 3/5ths of a person, etc.

The Supreme Court has very clearly decided the issue and repeatedly said that because the Secretary of State certified everything it is binding on the Courts, who do not have the power to rule about Constitutional Amendments anyway.

This argument has been dead since at least 1986.

Reaffirming the Constitution

[pegr]

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?

"Should have gone to..."

[DrEldarion]

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?

Are you a PATRIOT fan? No, not football

[Triumph The Insult C]

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?

purpose?

[mikeee]

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?

How can you even begin to be viable

[discovercomics]

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?

Re:How can you even begin to be viable

[rleibman]

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.
According to this page in 2000 the party fielded 255 of 435 U.S. Congress candidates and 25 of 33 Senate Candidates. Over 1430 candidates ran under the Libertarian Banner in 2000. The LP runs twice as many other candidates as all other third parties combined.
And those numbers are a enough that we could have mathematically had a house majority.
But remember that a majority is not necessary to effect a change, a minority equal to the difference between the two statist parties would do a lot.

Howard Stern

[ellem]

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.

How do you enforce rights in an ownership society?

[zzyzx]

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?

Everyone is thinking it!

[ZipprHead]

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?

Compulsory schooling

[Anonymous Coward]

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 /.)

How about...

[gfxguy]

Could you explain your belief that the United States is to blame for 9/11?

Re:How about...

[funk_doc]

Libertarians beleive that our government shall not entangle themselves in alliances with other nations.

I think that we can all agree that supporting the Afghanistan Taliban fighting the Soviets led to 9-11, along with our bases in Saudi. And I also think we can agree that no one could have ever predicted that this would have ever led to 9-11. This is the libertarian premise, foreign affairs are so complicated that engaging in them can *alyaws* lead to unforseen consequences, so you dont engage in them at all. We also have similar premise with regards to free markets, but thats another discussion.

There are 165 countries in the world, we have troops in 130 of them.

War on Iraq and other dictatorships

[philipdl71]

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?

2 questions

[WindBourne]

1. Via a presidential order, GWB allowed past presidents to hide anything that they wanted by declaring it national security. Will you lift this order and restore our right to know what our past presidents have done?
2. Is your priority to balance the budget first and then cut taxes, or is to cut taxes followed by balancing the budget, the same way that Reagan and GWB has done?

Morality

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:Morality

[Sheepdot]

I have been interested in the past in libertarian ideals and thoughts and did some amount of research.

What sorts of regulations and rules if any do libertarians believe are necessary to prevent the descent into "survival of the fittest"?

These two sentences are in direct conflict with each other. The Libertarian concept is *not* hard to understand. Freedom from federal regulations and rules is exactly what Libertarians propose.

If you are worried about the children, you are worried about the wrong thing. Up until the New Deal, the federal government had very little influence on the entirety of the country. Since no one alive ever really existed before then, it's hard to relate what the country would be like without agencies like the EPA, FDA, and others. Let me assure you, there were little, if any, widespread problems or issues. What exactly does the government provide to your children that you are concerned about? Child-labor laws? Public education? Which of the services that the federal government provides your children are you the most happy with? If a private company were to provide the same thing and you were taxed less, would you use them or would they fundamentally be in err simply because they are "driven by profits"?

Libertarians feel that states will rise up to the challenge of protecting those areas they deem necessary. Or private enterprise will. The federal government need not complicate matters with a broad centralized form of control. When government centralizes, so do corporations. When the laws makes the states more the same, corporations open up franchises without a hitch. If you like localized services, decentralize the government.

Re:Morality

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Morality

[lightknight]

Second Amendmant. Doesn't matter how strong or weak you are physically, a gun fires just the same.

But in all seriousness, libertarians like simplified rules. That is, a lot of the rules we have on the books today are hair-splitting, which is where all the bullsh*t comes in. And then there are the primary parties (Republican & Democrat) that put words in mouths (Yay, we're the pot party: not quite, we believe you are responsible for yourself (no welfare), so if you want to smoke pot, that's your own choice, deal with the consequences (less money, lung damage)).

What I like about the libertarians is that they ultimately give you back free choice: for better or worse, you are free to make your own decisions, and you live with the responsibility for those decisions.

Lastly, the founders of the US closely embodied those libertarian ideals (a few compromises, but close enough). Anyone care to guess what George W. would do to you if you suggested an income tax? Hint: it involves a rope and something called 'treason'. Sad that we haven't tried any politicians for treason (in a while)...probably because that word is loaded.

Re:Why, oh why?

[johndeeregator]

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?)

Re:Why, oh why?

[Azghoul]

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.

Global Economy

[ffejie]

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?

Federal Regulators.

[Irvu]

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?

Re:Federal Regulators.

[Irvu]

I dispute all of your claims but I'll start with the bit about Air Traffic and Toll Roads.

The airline industry is typically regarded as an economic success. People are able to go further for less money and in greater safety than if they drove. This crucial safety (which makes flying so attractive to the market) is accomplished by regulation. As you pointed out the Air Traffic controller and the nation's air-traffic control system (considered by many to be integral to security) is a single network designed and run by the federal government who sets national standards for airport operation, flight operation, pilot training, etc.

All of this regulation not only makes flying safer (a crucial point if it is to be successful) but it maes it possible for airlines of all sizes to operate. If every airport was different, and every town was a new adventure to fly to then the cost of travel would be considerably more as airline pilots would be required to learn a new standard set of rules for each airport and for each place. The time taken to go from place to place would increase. All of this would work to shut smaller airlines out of the market in favor of the larger, already established companies. Similarly the smaller airports would become less and less served as only the really big runs, the cash cows would be favored, as each small airport, without federal aid would probably fall into disrepair, or at least not be able to keep up with the bigger cities.

As to toll roads, consider first that it took federal dollars to build the existing roads and that even in states with toll road (in my experience) the roads do not pay for themselves. Rather the tolls only act to offset the state dollars that must be invested in them to keep them maintained. Without these roads the ability to move produce, to connect different parts of the state would be adversely impacted thus adversely effecting the economy in general. Making them toll roads to help offset costs is one idea but it will never be a viable way to privatize all road construction. And, how will you ensure that the roads are usable without regulating the way in which they are constructed? Even if you do privatize it the state will still have to be involved.

As to urban sprawl. I personally do not like it but privatizing the infrastructure won't change that.

Look at all of the infrastructure that has been privatized in the past. All of it (in my experience), from the deregulated phone services to the deregulated power in California, to privatized water has been more expensive than municipal services.

In general, a "free market" cannot operate without some infrastructural support, and regulation to make it feasible. Without that monopolies grow and your ability to "vote with your feet" becomes a joke. Take a look at the old trusts of the 1800's They had no regulation, and the people had no freedom.

320.5

[sudotcsh]

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.

But is he able?

[hkb]

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.

Another anagram... sorry playing around

[tod_miller]

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!

Re:Another anagram... sorry playing around

[tod_miller]

That was a dictionary definition, which I ctrl-c ctrl-v'd in to help the likes o fyou to try and understand the anagram, now fuck off. read the ufffcking post again.

and google for bilking (seinfeld quote - kramer, the help the aged foudation, bilking people out of thier savings! haha) and click the dictionary.reference.com link.

You are the reason why the monty python foot section has the , it's funny, laugh, tagline, because you are a dolt.

Morality?

[Milo Fungus]

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:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

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?

Any electoral votes?

[sharkb8]

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?

Re:Any electoral votes?

[WindBourne]

I think we can all agree that, being a minor party, the Libertarians run little risk of getting any of the electoral vote.

That is not quite true. A few states have moved to breaking the electorial to being a % of the votes. In doing so, it has made the states more attractive to the minority parties. In addition, more states are trying to push it. Here in colorado, a number of ppl are pushing for it, but the republican powers are really fighting it. We will have to see if the citizens want to break the powers that be.

Gaining Acceptance

[dougermouse]

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?

Non-compete clauses

[zzyzx]

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?

Financial Contributers

[Neil Watson]

Who are your three biggest finicial contributers?

timing

[j1mmy]

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.

Re:timing

[vhold]

I guess you have the freedom of advocating a pretty extremist platform when you have no real chance of being elected. I figure such grandoise plans are there to just grab attention. A really moderate realistic plan probably would be too 'ho hum' to get any air time, which is probably the #1 problem I have with politcs in general. Nobody cares to hear a drawn out, complex, and realistic plan...

Although it would really be interesting to hear each one of those really extreme ideas explained in detail, like, what do you expect to happen to the citizens of Iraq when you suddenly pull out? Don't you think that the rebels will take over and create an even worse, more oppressive and totally choatic 'government' then they had in the first place?

Intellectual Property

[geoff313]

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?

[DAldredge]

Why are you for unlimited immigration with no caps and no requirments?

Gambling and individual rationality

[Sanity]

Do you believe that someone should have the right to gamble with their bodily organs, and that the government should enforce the result?

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?

The Environment

[Sotogonesu]

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?

Re:The Environment

[funk_doc]

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.

Public Image

[Ralph Wiggam]

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

Given that our system is broken

[catbutt]

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?

Wacky Policies

[Reality Master 101]

One of the reasons I've never been able to even consider a Libertarian are some of the, frankly, wacky beliefs that many Libertarians hold, such as that private citizens should be able to have their own nuclear weapons (obviously a bad idea), completely private fire departments (fires SPREAD), etc.

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.

Re:Wacky Policies

[Daniel Boisvert]

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?

Nuclear proliferation

[SiliconEntity]

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?

Constitutional Ammendment 14 section 4

[Tellarite]

Knowing the constitution guru that you are I would like to know what your interpretation of the fourth section of the 14th ammendment is, which states:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Do you have a position on this issue? Does the "validity of the public debt" need to be questioned?

Intelectual Property Laws

[scorp1us]

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?

Economy

[hackstraw]

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?

Copyright Questions

[Dante333]

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?

Copyrights

[HolyCoitus]

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?

Campaign

[bgackle]

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?

Geeks and Libertarians

[starphish]

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?

Re:How do you enforce rights in an ownership socie

[GypC]

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.

What about the unfortunates?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

I have a question

[rd_syringe]

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?

Re:I have a question

[ralph_the_wonder_lla]

It's not just about money. Having run for the State House in Michigan in 1992, I can tell you that it is about preserving a two-party hedgemony. A Republican or Democrat could get on the ballot by simply going to the County Clerks office and plunking down $100. Then each candidate (Rep/Dem) would be put on the primary ballot in August with the winner showing up on the General Election ballot. A few hundred dollars does not cover the cost of holding an election in a district, so money is not the issue. When I ran, I was an Independent candidate. I had to collect 2% of all the votes cast in district during the last Governors election on a petition. It came out to just over 500 signatures. During that time while collecting them, I came to the conclusion that the system would work better if the folks in office had to go out and face the voters. They were a pretty anger bunch in 1992, I'll bet they're even more hostile today. If I had been the incumbent, all I would have had to do was sign an Affidavit of Incumbency and I would have been on the ballot automatically. It isn't about money. It's all about access.

Re:I have a question

[rd_syringe]

The Dems are ASKING him not to run and ASKING voters not to sign petitions for Nader so that he does not make it on the ballot.

No, they're not. They're suing Nader across the nation in an attempt to keep him off the ballots, claiming his signatures are invalid. Already, their claims have been tossed out in Florida and Nader will be on the ballot:

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/413583|top|09 -13-2004::18:47|reuters.html

Naturally, they claim a Bush conspiracy, but it's just sour grapes that *gasp* someone other than a Democrat and Republican might be taking votes away from the big guys on the playground. What about free speech? What about the idea of anybody being able to run for President?

libertarians and government health care

[Luyseyal]

Consider the following:

1. To engage in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", one must have, above all, Life
2. To adequately sustain one's Life in the modern age, one must visit the doctor, hospital, emergency room, etc. regardless of whether one can afford it, regardless of whether the problems were self-initiated or happened through no fault of one's own, and regardless of one's age
3. More and more healthy people are avoiding expensive health insurance which increases the amount of risk in insurance pools, increasing rates, as well as hospital expenses for more emergency visits by the uninsured
4. The Cato Institute said on CSPAN last August that in order for private health insurance to work, we must accept as a society that there will be people who die because they cannot afford the care they need
5. By definition, a government risk pool would be far wider than any private, competing insurance company

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

Re:libertarians and government health care

[haxor.dk]

"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?"

1) You do not have a right to good health.

2) Experience shows that anything the state touches, it corrupts.

Re:libertarians and government health care

[hey]

More Americans have died because of no health care insurance than terrorism. Where the war on lack of health insurance?

Re:libertarians and government health care

[Sheepdot]

1. To engage in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", one must have, above all, Life.

I actually think of it as a tree, with life splitting into the other two. I'm already beginning to enjoy this "logic" game you're playing as it seems to attribute that it is the government's responsibility to keep the citizen's alive.

Think of the word "responsible". Would you give up your freedom to do whatever you like as long as it didn't harm the rights of others in exchange for never having to be "responsible" for keeping yourself alive? Sounds like a pretty poor tradeoff for me. I'd rather taking on the grueling (pardon my pun) task of keeping myself alive and be able to do what I'd like.

GOOGLE TERM: "government accountability"

To adequately sustain one's Life in the modern age, one must visit the doctor, hospital, emergency room, etc. regardless of whether one can afford it, regardless of whether the problems were self-initiated or happened through no fault of one's own, and regardless of one's age

Couldn't be any more incorrect. I don't go to the doctor every time I cut myself, but you can be rest assured that if I had the time and was a worry-wart, like so many in this "modern age" are, then I'd be going. Hell, I'd go every time after sex to make sure I wasn't infected with something. If it's free, why not?

It is well known the US health care system is the best in the world. World leaders come *here* for their problems. Canada has lines and piss-poor health care and they aren't even radically socialized.

GOOGLE TERM: "countries without universal health care" (Very first link, in fact. If I was puking blood and the nurse brushed me off, I'd be pissed. Thank god I don't live in a country with universal health care.)

More and more healthy people are avoiding expensive health insurance which increases the amount of risk in insurance pools, increasing rates, as well as hospital expenses for more emergency visits by the uninsured

Insurance is mandatory for many things. I'm not just talking sake of your life, I'm talking like, it is illegal to *not* have it. Is it actually surprising that people are paying the minimums? Also, where are your stats on these increased rates? My insurance provider just created a new bracket specifically for a single male(ie, Me).

The Cato Institute said on CSPAN last August that in order for private health insurance to work, we must accept as a society that there will be people who die because they cannot afford the care they need

This just sounds oh, so, horrible until:

GOOGLE TERM: "age thresholds" (Forget "1984", we want "Logan's Run")

By definition, a government risk pool would be far wider than any private, competing insurance company

I'll be honest, I'm not a health care genius. But let me ask you this: At what point in your life did you determine that it was okay for other people to tell you what to do with your property, your body, and your life?

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?

You have a very misguided view of Libertarians. It's not a government that "allows" you to do things, it's what you allow the government to control in your life. When the Declaration of Independence said, "inalienable", it meant they were rights that were inherently there and a government would have to justify any attempts to encroach upon them.

Pharaphrase the Constitution

[nurb432]

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?

How do you make it worthwhile?

[bwalling]

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?

next victim… I mean candidate

[capoccia]

Hey Taco--
Can we get Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party as the next candidate? He is on the ballot in most states.

My question

[LodCrappo]

What have I got in my pocket?

Human nature.

[DAldredge]

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.

Cost of Ownership

[Baldrson]

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?

Free State project

[dkleinsc]

Where do you see the the Free State Project in New Hampshire leading, both for your party and for the nation in general?

Re:How do you enforce rights in an ownership socie

[zzyzx]

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?

Public vs. Private.

[lynx_user_abroad]

Many of us on Slashdot have concerns about how Copyright and Patent law seem to be working in conjunction to lock-up ownership of ideas and prevent future innovation. One argument which gets trotted-out regularly is that many of today's most strongly protected ideas are built on top of a long history of prior innovations.

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?

national relevance

[drteknikal]

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?

Libertarians for Life

[Tikiman]

You do not mention abortion on your page of issues. Are you a Libertarian for Life? Why or why not?

Drugs and Guns

[LookSharp]

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.

My question: Who the hell are you?

[Mr. Cancelled]

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?

intellectual property rights and market regulation

[pyros]

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?

Gay Marriage

[thrash_]

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?

Re:How do you enforce rights in an ownership socie

[GypC]

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.

Federal Reserve / Gradualism

[Adolatra]

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?

Presidential Debates access?

[e-celt]

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?

plan for implementing policy

[ChristTrekker]

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...

• Privatize Social Security and Medicare without leaving the millions that currently depend on it completely in the lurch?
• Get the states to rely on their own resources rather than eating at the federal trough?
• Restore state sovereignty in general? What does that look like in the modern world?
• Eliminate income tax and still fund the legitimate functions of the federal government? What about the period as unconstitutional functions are transitioning back to the states or the private sector?
• Ease the fears of the rest of the world when you pull the US out of the UN?
• Transition from paper fiat currenty back to hard money?
• Eliminate executive departments (e.g. Education) that Congress has authorized?
• Really think you can stand up to pressure from Congress, the Supreme Court, the media, and the public when you act like no president has in the last century?

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?

Respect for our Constitution....

[Senjutsu]

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?

Re:Respect for our Constitution....

[swillden]

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."?

I've seen a lot of uninformed discussion on this topic, so I'm going to step into this minefield and try to explain the income tax controversy. Either that or I'm just going to add some more uninformed discussion, you be the judge ;-)

Note that I pay my taxes, and think that anyone who doesn't is stupid.

I'll warn you in advance, this is complicated, and I may have missed a bit here and there, but I think this is a reasonable summary of the *informed* argument about income taxes in the US.

First, some will argue that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified, because although it was ratified by 3/4 of the states, not all of them ratified the same language that is in the final version of the amendment. I don't know what the differences were, perhaps someone can speak up.

However, those people who argue that are being silly, because it doesn't really matter -- because the 16th amendment wasn't necessary in the first place. Why? Because Congress already had the power to lay taxes, per Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. There are some limits, based on the definition of "direct" taxes in Article I Section 2, on what has to be apportioned among the states and what has to be uniform across the entire nation, but Congress always had the power to tax incomes. Both the US Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury have found that the 16th amendment granted no new powers to Congress, but just clarified that income taxes fell into the category of taxes that do not have to be apportioned. Since the Supreme Court has held the same to be "inherently" true, repealing the 16th amendment (or convincing everyone that it was never actually passed in the first place) wouldn't change anything.

The reason that the amendment was passed was because of a court ruling that held that income taxes were "direct" taxes and had to be apportioned. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling in 1916.

So, Congress has the power to lay income taxes. Fine. Does that mean they have the right to tax *your* income? Well, that's not necessarily clear. Why? It's a question of jurisdiction. According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce but does not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Taxation is a form of regulation. If you don't buy that, think about all of the tax credits given to incent particular behaviors. And, anyway, the Federal courts have found that taxation is regulation.

So, there is an argument to be made that Congress can only tax incomes that derive from interstate or international sources. Yes, yes, the 16th amendment says "from whatever source derived", but unless that is interpreted to mean that Congress has been granted a limited ability to regulate intrastate commerce, then incomes from intrastate sources are not within the scope of the authority granted to Congress, so anything purely intrastate would be implicitly excluded. It would seem that if the intent were to give Congress the authority to regulate intrastate commerce in particular ways, that should have been stated more clearly. Besides, the Supreme Court says that the 16th Amendment granted no new powers to Congress, and theirs is the opinion that matters.

So if I sell lemonade on the street corner, 100 miles from the nearest state line, my income should not be taxable, right? Well, maybe not, but, in practice, if you don't pay it you're going to jail and if you make this argument in court they'll simply refer to the numerous court rulings (all the way up to the USSC) that uphold the tax laws and their common interpretation. If you appeal all the way to the Supre

Privatizing Education

[EvilJello203]

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?

Is intellectual property real?

[scottzak]

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?

Spending

[Juhani]

How would you propose to curb or eliminate "deficit spending" which in my view seems to breed a society that has no fiscal responsibility?

Software Patents

[diakka]

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?

Electoral Reform

[albeit]

What is the Libertarian position on proportional representation (http://fairvote.org/pr) and instant runoff voting (http://fairvote.org/irv)?

Approval voting?

[j1m 5n0w]

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

Re:Approval voting?

[Da Twink Daddy]

Gah! How can you mention other voting methods without discussing the condorcet method. Mathematically, it's a generalization of both our current voting system and approval voting. It has many objective advantages over both, and kicks the crap out of IRV.

In any case, approval voting should be approved now.

Re:Approval voting?

[j1m 5n0w]

Attend a speech from Michael Badnarik and support him

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:

• information asymmetry leads to all sorts of problems. That's why we need things like government mandated ingredient lists in the food we buy. The market functions much better when people know what they're buying.
• Monopolies can potentially be just as destructive as government-run industries (or even more so, since they lack accountability). Choosing between the local phone monopoly and the local cable monopoly for internet access is hardly a "free market".

His ideas on free trade seem a little weird:

"We need to get the government out of regulating trade, so that American workers can do what they do best and that is to create wealth."

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.

Badnarik opposes government regulation of the energy industry, instead arguing that the free market is more effective in controlling prices and maintaining stability. "All you need to know about economics is the law of supply and demand. When the supply of something goes down, the price of it will go up. And as the price of gasoline goes up, the consumerist at the pump is going to provide the incentive for finding alternative sources."

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.

As president, Badnarik would avoid "entangling alliances" and would initiate "a rapid recall of our troops from around the world. Other countries will be less likely to attack us when we are trading goods that are necessary for their survival." He supports the reduction and eventual elimination of government-funded foreign aid programs

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

here goes

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

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?

Instant Runoff Electoral College

[dynamo]

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.

Public Funding of Space Exploration

[Chip Wilson]

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?

Re:What happens to people who fall between the cra

[ratamacue]

Charities only do so much

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.

Moderating 3rd parties?

[Randolpho]

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?

Re:Would you still do it?

[radicalskeptic]

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.

What is your stance in Intellectual property?

[isotope23]

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...

Financial alchemy?

[fiannaFailMan]

From your website, on healthcare reform:

Lower costs, along with the savings from downsizing regulatory bureaucracy, will fund tax credits for those who establish Health Savings Accounts for themselves, their families, Medicare/Medicaid recipients, and the needy

I see this a lot on your website, how downsizing regulatory bureaucracy will bring all these savings. There's just one problem. Cutting red tape and reducing bureaucracy is something that all governments attempt all the time as part of the day-to-day order of business. Do you not think that proclaiming this magic wand solution as the answer to all our problems only marks you out as another political wannabe?

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?

Foreign policy

[Stonent1]

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?

Is Trippi right?

[KyleFreeman]

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"?

International Intervention

[Herbmaster]

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?

legislative vs. executive branch

[Yonder Way]

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.

Re:legislative vs. executive branch

[rleibman]

I don't think anyone is fixated on winning the Presidency yet. Running a candidate for presidency is very important: it gives you national coverage, and it gives many local candidates local coverage when the Presidential candidate is in town. It sets the stage for future campaigns. It may seem an unfocused strategy, but you would be mistaken in thinking that the LP is monolithic in its approach. I'm running for State Senate, it cost me nearly nothing (but time) to do so, at every level other Libertarians do the same, the result seems unfocused, but in reality it isn't, it's just focused in a distributed way.
You are right, every election there's a few local or federal legislative candidates that have a realistic chance, the party also supports them (as exemplified by the constant fundraising letters I get). To date even this has not been enough to make any inroads. Things get much worse every time redistricting takes place and each district is made safer (using computers even!) for the incumbent parties.

Almost

[roystgnr]

It's called Condorcet Voting, and unlike IRV it's supported by mathematicians.

Libertarian Extremism

[MischaLeChatte]

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.

Convincing fearful public to let go of government.

[Maul]

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?

Sept. 11, 2001

[Noexit]

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.

Moderate Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: why the electoral college can be a good thing

[MustardMan]

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.

Scaremongering

[MarkusQ]

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?

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

Re:Scaremongering

[Modesitt]

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.

How to reform Electoral College?

[code_rage]

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)?

Re:No wasting this year...

[khadzia]

I have heard this argument so many times, I'm not sure why I still address it.

Regardless of whether you "like" Bush or Kerry, they definitely have different positions on a wide range of positions. Only if you don't care about any of the following issues can you truly say it "doesn't matter"

**** Gay Rights
+ Bush is for the marriage amendment
+ Kerry is againts the amendment

**** Abortion Rights
+ Bush is pro-life
+ Kerry is pro-choice

**** Gun Control
+ Bush is letting the Assault Weapons Ban expire (at least not actively trying to extend it)
+ Kerry wants to extend the ban

**** Taxes
+ Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent
+ Kerry wants to undo the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% (? the percentage could be wrong)

**** Stem Cells
+ Bush declared that only X number of stem cell lines made before a certain date are allowed to be used in federally funded research
+ Kerry wants to allow new lines

I simply think that the third party people out there just want something different and are trying to blur the differences in the two parties for their own ends. (Pat Buchanan left the Republican party because of this, and Ralph Nader called Gore "Bush Lite"). However a viable 3rd party if successful, would fall into the same problems of both of the current parties, special interest groups trying to steer the party.

Re:How do you enforce rights in an ownership socie

[GypC]

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.

Seriously.

[metalligoth]

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?

Re:What happens to people who fall between the cra

[Kombat]

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.

Safty net VS charity

[TamMan2000]

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.

Someone has to ask: Iraq

[KilobyteKnight]

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?

Re: why the electoral college can be a good thing

[e2ka]

"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."

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.

How will you do it?

[cherrypi]

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.

Can Libertarians contest in elections?

[teetam]

I ask this question as a libertarian - Why should libertarians contest in elections? After all, democracy is about the imposition of majority will on people with contrarian views and that is the opposite of liberty and other principles that the party stands for!

If you get elected, will you force your libertarian views on people who don't agree? Would that be a libertarian act?

Getting yourselves known

[JLSigman]

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?

Mainstream Libertarianism

[Brandybuck]

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?

Re:No wasting this year...

[jeaton]

**** Gun Control
+ Bush is letting the Assault Weapons Ban expire (at least not actively trying to extend it)
+ Kerry wants to extend the ban

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.

How is that a good thing

[MarkPNeyer]

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.

Ideology vs pragmatism

[Charles Dodgeson]

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?

The Bootstrapping Myth: Where's the Compassion?

[bensyverson]

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

Intellectual Property Balance

[stylee]

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?

What's your position on outsourcing/immigration?

[Whatsmynickname]

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?

The DMCA and such.

[John Pliskin]

What would your stand be on such laws like the INDUCE act, and the DMCA?

$

Power Relationships

[denissmith]

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.

Simply not getting the Libertarian philosophy

[Qrlx]

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.

Geeks are CIVIL libertarians...

[bensyverson]

...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

What is the purpose of your presidential campaign?

[WCityMike]

What is the Libertarian Party's long-term plan for actually winning an election?

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?

Policy Question

[geekpolitico]

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.

Libertarianism

[WalterDGeranios]

In a strictly libertarian society, the costs of protection of rights fall on the owners of those rights -- not on the general public.

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?

MOD PARENT UP

[camliner]

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.

National Missile Defense - Folly?

[SnakeStu]

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?

Re:National Missile Defense - Folly?

[rleibman]

Good question. If I remember correctly, Harry Browne cheerfully endorsed SDI both in 1996 and 2000, provided it can be made to work, it is a much better use of time/money/people than other methods of defense. The argument has watered down since we lost the excuse of other super powers pointing missiles at us, I don't know what Badnarik thinks about this one, but considering other things we spend our money on, it's a good investment to at least investigate the usefulness of such a system. If we reduced our military to the protection of our country we would have enough left over to fully explore this and other methods of genuine defense.

How do you get changes made?

[deranged unix nut]

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?

Re:How do you get changes made?

[deranged unix nut]

Which changes and platform positions do you see as most likely to be implemented? Which are least likely to be implemented?

Defending our country against terrorists?

[Theovon]

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.

Scope of Government

[Telastyn]

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?

Some questions from a progressive libertarian

[creideiki]

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 dollar

You 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 net

Centralized 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 property

Clearly 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?"

Libertarians and Greens

[bmasel]

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?

The Salamander Statement

[McSmiley]

Mr. Badnarik, during your recent visit to Tucson, you are quoted as saying

" Say you want to protect a salamander that's on my land. Well, get your own piece of land, and put the salamander there."

You imply that an ecological system can be subdivided as finely as property, and furthermore that any part of such an ecology has no intrinsic right of its own. Do you truly believe that we can prevent further environmental degredation with the view that what you kill on your property has no bearing on what may live on my property? Or do you believe that there is no value in nature beyond that which we define as capable of being owned?

Libertarians vs. Communists

[kindbud]

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?

Re: why the electoral college can be a good thing

[MustardMan]

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.

Fiat Currency

[dark_requiem]

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?

As a small-'l' libertarian senior undergrad...

[Money for Nothin']

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

What can I do to break the two party strangle-hold

[MMHere]

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?

Why not run in sheep's clothing?

[FireballFreddy]

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. ;)

Intellectual Property Rights and the Eldred Act?

[PipianJ]

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 balance the budget?

[sybert]

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?

Paradigm Shift

[Kylow]

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?

Why a Third Party?

[nwbvt]

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?

Re: why the electoral college can be a good thing

[cas2000]

> 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.

on the military-industrial complex

[russeljns]

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?

Why Vote Libertarian?

[Boawk]

For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican, George W. Bush, or a Democrat, John Kerry, is going to be elected president in November. No one else has a chance.

Not Ralph Nader, not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers - like Nader costing Gore the presidency in 2000 - but they don't win presidential elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.

(From: http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/ article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3106846,00.html)

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?

Re:question, Bush or Kerry?

[Kylow]

AC, If you could only vote for Hitler or Stalin, which would you select and why? Which is a closer match for your vision? Its a Sophie's Choice no matter how you look at it. There are some questions that just cannot be answered.

And that was "insightful"?

[khasim]

"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.

Re:Multiple Parties: California's Experience

[fiannaFailMan]

I disagree. I know many Republicans who wanted to vote for Tom McClintock (who was arguably the better republican candidate from an experience and knowledge point of view) but voted for Swartzenegger so as not to waste their votes. The masses voted for the movie star, the more educated conservatives had to just watch the polls and go with the flow against their batter judgement.

Bittorrent's of Michael Badnarik videos

[hitchhacker]

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

Re:How will you keep Fox News viewers...

[watcher44]

Good point. Bill O'Reilly can't even keep it straight. He keeps calling Bill Maher a libertarian, when he is obvious the most left of lefty democrats. The truth is O'Reilly knows the difference and he is just harrassing the libertarians. But a few real libertarians have made it on the show. It's pretty funny when it happens. Old Bill gets pretty flustered.

Hegelian Dialectic

[Munkis_Der_Kanzler]

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.

Re:govt spending

[TamMan2000]

In large aircraft gas turbine design, and manufacturing, there are 3 main companys, at least 2 of which (GE, United Technologies) are not just aerospace companies, but rather do everything from air conditioners, to elevators, to aerospace (I worked for one of them, in the engine division). There are at least a dozen or so contracting organizations for each step of the design/construction/testing of such products, which compete for projects, frequently against members of the companies responsible for the overall product.

In my observation, the same stuff that lbmouse mentioned about budgets getting spent or going away causing waste happens in large companies too. Only there are twists... I saw managers that spent their budgets frivolously, because they new their projects were important, and that all they needed to do to get more funding was ask. I also saw managers not spend their alloted budget, at the expence of getting their job done, becasue, at times teh incentive to save money was greater than the incentive to do good work.

The company I worked for also would routinly pinch pennies at the expence of dollars worth of productivity. They would shut down the AC on hot summer days, because electricity was expensive, work in office areas ground to a halt with a long pants dress code in effect and 80+ degree office temperatures and windows that can't be opened. but since low productivity of workers couldn't be found on a balance sheet, and electricity could... Nobody cared. I even did an analysis based on a an asumption of a 50% cutback in unpaid overtime (a conservative estimate on my part) among engineers alone (left out financial types), and the cost of compensating an engineer, vs the stated savings from power consumption reduction, I got a factor of 5 increase in expences, I showed it to my boss, and he killed it, because saving money was the way to get promoted, and getting work done didn't matter.

It was bad...

Information Technology and the unemployed

[h8macs]

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?

Foreign Policy Question

[sjanich]

As president, what will your foreign policy grand strategy be?

US Intelligence Community

[sjanich]

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.

Top Three Priorities

[sjanich]

What would be the top 3 priorities of a Michael Badnarik presidency?

Reasons to vote Libertarian

[forbin2k]

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?"

On the subject of War

[OB Loco]

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?