Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian Badnarik an Election Spoiler?
Mr. Slippery writes "The New York Sun points out that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik could tip the balance in this year's presidental election, like Ralph Nader is accused of having done in 2000. Bush's policies may be driving some traditional conservative Republican voters into the Libertarian camp. Rasmussen polls have put him as high as 5% in New Mexico and 3% in Nevada, which could make a difference in which major party candidate takes those states."
You have good intuition to have picked up on. All the signs are there, yet very few have noticed the trend--except one If the thought of the Republican party imploding makes you wet your pants with glee, and you really want to brighten your day, I commend this article to you.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Were Badnarik to take a state or two, the Democrat and Republican parties would start taking actual action on those parts of their own platforms (repeal of drug prohibitions, actual fiscal responsibility) that are the linchpins of the Libertarian position.
Who cares what the party label is on the candidate, if he actually represents your views? Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for President, but is in the US House as a Republican. His views haven't changed. He still is the most consistently socially liberal, fiscally conservative, voter in the House.
Look at the Socialist party platform from prior to FDR's reign. Practically the entire party platform has been enacted, by both Democrats and Republicans. Party label is irrelevant once the candidate is elected.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others
No... they are strong believers in SOME civil liberties almost exclusively limited to the area of sex at this point. You can do whatever you want as long as it's not smoking, owning a gun, saying something "insensitive", doing whatever you want with and on your own property, keeping your own income, associating, or NOT, with whomever you want for whatever reasons you want, taking risks with your health, educating your own children, etc. etc. etc.
A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people....
("business" libertarians) could care less if... a business pays white workers more then black workers
This is exactly the difference between libertarians and Democrats. That you use it as an example of something you think contradicts libertarianism shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what they believe. Libertarians place the highest value on liberty, Democrats place it on equality or perhaps "fairness". The two are NOT the same at all and are in fact VERY OFTEN in conflict. Your (sadly, not so) hypothetical is a perfect example of the difference. The arrangement between this employer and his black employees is one arrived at by the consent of both in liberty... A libertarian can think that employer a bad man, may personally shun him, may even organize a boycott of his business. A libertarian would likely think this man would eventually harm his own busines and be supplanted by another company that will properly values labor. A libertarian would point out that institutional racism ultimately REQUIRES government enforcement because of this truth. The one thing a libertarian would NOT do is advocate government action to FORCE that man to do something with his own money that he didn't want to do of his own free will.
Your example is at one extreme where even some libertarians today may see the case for government action. The problem with your argument is that Democrats see such justifiable violations of peoples liberty *everywhere*. Laws, upon laws, upon laws in almost every sphere of human activity, exercised by the most centralized government body available. Laws dictating when and where I can build a house, earn a living, employ other people, what I MUST pay for insurance against future calamity etc. etc. etc. All of them with excellent justification for why following them will make me and others happier, healthier, wiser... it's just that it's not my choice.
I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others
The problem with these "rights" is that they are not rights I carry in myself but OBLIGATIONS that must be imposed upon someone else. I could argue that I have a RIGHT to grow, or earn my own food... but to have a RIGHT to food itself government must FORCE someone else to give it to me, same with shelter, health, love etc.
Let me point out that I am NOT a libertarian. I'm perfectly OK with and approve many of these laws and think that government has some broader responsibilities beyond what a true libertarian would agree with. I do however understand the philosophy and can see that you don't... that is why you think (wrongly) that there is a large body of libertarians within the Democratic party that may bolt to the Libertarian candidate. Unless of course you think there is a large body of Democrats that would find the logic above regarding racial hiring practices perfectly sound, I rather doubt it.
I think people would be less likely to shoot at you if they thought you'd shoot back. If we got government regulation out of health care, it would cost a lot less, and with your saved tax dollars you could purchase more of it. If drug prohibition were ended, the druggies could afford their habbits and their rent just like the majority of nicotine and alchohol addicts... Why again didn't you want a pre-singularity libertarian society?
http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 and http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/n ews/nation/9872659.htm
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest