Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian Candidate Michael Badnarik Interview
Lowtekium writes "On November 2nd many young adult Americans will go to the polls to vote for their next President, but very few of them know of the Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik. JIVE Magazine had the chance to interview Mr. Badnarik. He gives his thoughts on various topics that affect young adults such educational aid and funding for college students, video game violence, and even music and entertainment censorship."
Badnarik is a touch radical for me (bulldozing the UN building? Honestly.), but a third party voice is ALWAYS welcome to me in our inefficient bipartisan system.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will bring back the draft. In fact, that bill was killed weeks ago. The Republicans from the Prez on down have said there will be no draft, and even though the Democrats sponsored the draft bill in the House, they weren't really serious about it - it was just used as a scare tactic / wedge issue.
So either Badnarick is either ignorant, or just thinks young people are so stupid that you can just scare them into voting for you. MTV does the same thing with Rock the Vote. Check it out - as we've seen before, neither party is bringing back the draft but MTV still hosts this page.
Perhaps if Badnarick starts treating the "Dot Net" age group like the intelligent, informed people that we are instead of all the MTV-esque scare-mongering, maybe we might vote for him.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
FTA
Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.
Though I understand that it's suppose to be civil disobeadence, I'm not sure how they can Legeally be stoped from serving papers. I guess the idea is that they were trying to do it during the debate itself for the most coverage, but what am I missing here?
This bill was killed weeks ago. I think that only 1 representative voted for it. Even the sponsor (Rangel) voted against it.
There were some other interesting comments in the article about staffing up Selective Service, and the "back-door" draft of not letting people leave the military.
"If you vote for the lesser of two evils and your candidate wins, you still get evil. The only wasted vote is when you vote for a candidate that you don't respect."
Very true. I know there are those who will say "that is stupid, a vote for (3rd party) is just a vote for (candidate I don't like) and this election is the most important ever, we have to make sure (candidate I don't like) does not win"
I say bull. This election is possibly the LEAST important ever. Bush and Kerry are so similar it is sickening. Oh sure what they SAY is different but if you think for a second that Kerry is going to (end the war/roll back tax cuts/improve civil liberties/etc) you are either completely ignorant of what he has said and done in the past, or (worse) you think his sudden change in positions was legit and had nothing to do with struggling to find ways to differentiate himself from Bush.
So vote for who you really want to win, because either Bush or Kerry are going to win anyway and they will both equally suck.
What's the point of all these candidates with less than 1% of the vote even trying.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
He looks like he's struggling to stay upright in that sofa thing.
/. interview. Here he just repeats over and over the most basic concepts of Libertarianism. Which is mildly compelling, but the specifics are way more interesting.
Anyway, I think he presented himself better in the
And if there was ever a massive sea change in American politics that made the Libertarian Party suddenly have a viable shot at the presidency, Badnarik is the Libertarian that I would want. Not because I like or dislike Libertarians in general, but because he seems like an honest, swell guy, and I wouldn't think he'd pander to special interests. I'd trust him not to do a pro-corporate hack job of libertarianism.
Whenever anyone else talks about "deregulation" it winds up being some horseshit.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"We just expect you to handle all the consequences of your decision. So everything Libertarians espouse is basically individual rights and personal responsibility."
But that is the whole sticking point.
The conceptions of what one should be a responsible for or have the right to do is are so varied that to simply say that that is what you espouse is meaningless.
As Badnarik asks, "Why would you let the government tell you what to do?" This is not a reasonable argument against other parties: Libertarians still tell you what to do. They say you have to respect what Badnarik calls "divine rights." No one would agree with Badnarik's exact intepretation of "divine rights" and many would not agree with anything significantly close to it.
It seems anarchists outdue the libertarians with regards to personal liberty: they say the government shouldn't tell you what to do at all. Libertarians say that the government should tell you to do some things. Marxist-Leninists says that the government should tell you to do other things. Libertarians have just picked one of many positions of the government telling you what to do. And they don't offer any definitive reasons that trump any other political parties' reasons for choosing their particular ideological position. They're saying: "everyone must have these rights simply because it's natural/divine." I don't see any evidence whatsoever that their conceptions of rights and responsibilities are natural. You can say they're "nice" or "moral", but to claim their natural is to claim that the universe is bound to your ideals. Perhaps it is, but I don't see the evidence.
Does anyone more familiar with Libertarian thought have more evidence? I'm glad to dicuss this and think about it moreso.
Read the interview, he calls college grants for low-income student "goverment-sponsored theft".
Without this "goverment-sponsored theft", I wouldn't be making $70K right now and contributing $20K per year to Uncle Sam... I might even be on welfare...
But when you're 40 years old and you finally get your office job and you're wearing a suit and tie to work, all of a sudden you realize the government is taking 35 percent of the money that you've worked so hard for and giving it to people who do nothing but sit on the couch, watch TV, and procreate.
What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.
It's sad that the term "Big Government" carries such negative connotations. It's mostly something that Republicans (ironically) invoke to attack Democrats.
When railing on big government, it's important to consider the fact that big government was what got us out of the Great Depression, and small government was what got us into it. Unchecked capitalism leads to monopolies, which lead to all of the wealth being concentrated in a few hands, which leads to (eventual) economic collapse. You can see it happening right now. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, etc.
The solution isn't a total conversion to communism or socialism (both of which have repeatedly been shown to cause economic stagnation), but rather to put a system in place that redistributes wealth at about the same rate that the wealthy can hoard it. That's where taxes and social programs come in.
Unfortunately, people will always take advantage of the system. Capitalism, even controlled capitalism, provides an incentive for people not to do this. What's important to remember is that the people who are taking advantage are the exception and not the rule. So while some of your tax money is wasted on welfare for layabouts and bottom-feeders, it's also going to a lot of people who genuinely need it and deserve the help.
One last note: If you have to vote for lower taxes, you should vote for Badnarik over Bush, as someone will eventually have to pay for Bush's out-of-control spending. Kerry in 2004!
I'm pretty much a democratic socialist. While Badnarik gave compelling arguments in this interview - for example: "How do I pay for my granma's medication?" "Do you have money?" "Yes, but what about the guy with the SUV who has more money than he knows what to do with?" "Well, would you hold him at gunpoint to take the money?" "No!" "But you want the government to..."
That's all well and good, and I can see the point behind it. But then there is the tragedy of the commons. For example, if there is a river that runs through my property, I don't have the right to dam it up and deny people downstream the use of that river, because that river is a common, shared resource.
Look at copyright: Copyright is (supposed to) expire, because there is no such thing as an idea in a vacuum. The idea came from the combined experiences and environment provided by society. Giving up exclusive control of a creation after a certain amount of time is how we pay back society.
Well, Grandma raised a good mother who raised a good daughter, who then went to college to get a better job. She is therefore contributing more to society, possibly creating more jobs, building a better economy, providing living history. Her contributions to society are immeasurable, even if they're not directly monetary.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it assumes we all exist in a vacuum. "It's my money, and society has no right to it unless I give it." If that's your philosophy, then you have no rights to the benefit of society. Note that I said society, not government.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Say what you will about the Bush administration, but they know a thing or two about politics.
It is disheartening to see Badnarik claiming that "if I'm not elected you'll be drafted!" - I thought at least third party candidates could refrain from baseless scare tactics.
How many times does a politician have to lie to you before you stop believing anything they say?
;) Sometime in the next year, something will happen that "justifies" a draft. I have a hunch its that President Kerry will be assasinated by "terrorists" (read CIA/illuminati/insert your favorite here)
Of course they're going to say there will be no draft (how would they get elected otherwise), but as you admit yourself, it MIGHT be necessary in the future. There is CURRENTLY a sort of "backdoor" draft going on (RETIRED RESERVISTS being called into active duty), and if we continue the so-called War on Terror, there WILL be a need for more warm bodies.
I will make a bold prediction
You're right that the bill was not serious. On the other hand, how do you explain this
in 2012.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
He seems pretty confident that the draft is going to be reinstated no matter what. While I wont vote for bush he did say flat out that there wont be a draft as long as he is president. And despite him being incredibly stupid, he hasn't made any flat out blatant open lies. All of his lies are slippery with qualifications and such. And the people that write what he says are very careful. Also, it would take congress to have a draft and they voted almost unanimously against it just a short time ago. Obviously they could bring it up again and vote yes, but I can't imagine every person in congress changing their minds without a new catastrophic event.
I really hope that there is no new catastrophic event.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I heard Mr. Badnarik speak at length and in person. As a sort of Athiest/Techno-Pagan, I am particularly sensitive to talk of God or the "divine", especially by politicians. I do not recall hearing any religious words out of Michael, except when he was talking about the seperation of church and state (which his is firmly in favor of). He even refused to tell us what his own religious affiliation is.
Michael Badnarik's belief in what our unalienable rights are, is derived directly from the constitution. He teaches a class about it, and his book on the subject (Good to be King) is currently doing quite well on Amazon.
The constitution limits the areas where the federal government gets to tell us what to do to those specifically enumerated. All the other areas are left to the state or local governments, or to the people themselves. If we want to grant further federal rights to tell us what to do, we go through the rather laborious process of amending the constitution. It's hardly anarchist or even complicated. It's just confusing because our well meaning, progressive notions bulldozed through those complications by popular demand. Now we have unlimited government and EVERYTHING is political and we wonder what we can do stop becoming a totalitarian nation. Constitutionally limited government is the Libertarian answer to that problem.
Seem to teach a history biased in favor of big government.
Its obviously difficult to predict how the free market and/or government regulation will affect any given industry. You have a good point that there are historical examples of very damaging monopolies in our history (before the era of "big government"). Personally, I think that only industries which include a lot of expensive infrastructure have any great potential of monopolistic abuse. On the other hand, government regulation usually amounts to GRANTING a monopoly and requiring some sort of compliance so that the consumers don't get screwed. The thing is, that as much as consumers might be protected, it prevents any other businesses from competing, and therefore provides no incentive for the monopoly to innovate.
I think, in the information age, it is time to give the free market another chance. If all the laws protecting and subsidizing corporations were repealed, and we were each individually responsible for our own actions, I think the level of abuse by big business of consumers, other business, and the environment, would drop drastically. This, unlike in times long past, would be enabled by the rapid spread of information on corporate abuses.
Even now, far more people are aware of what they are buying and who is benefitting from it, but its currently quite difficult to keep track of and there are cases where one has little choice but to keep buying from a company you despise (M$, utilities)
Because the Selective Service System is legally obligated to keep the draft boards stocked. And they've been obligated for a good number of decades now.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I live in Texas, where the GOP dominates. So instead of voting for Kerry (or the Green Party, my real favorite) I just voted in early voting for Badnarik, even though I am no longer a Libertarian. But since the Libertarian platform is essentially a rightwing platform (essentially advocating zero taxation), if the Libertarian party gets more popular and gets more ballot access, their candidates will take away votes from the GOP candidates....
Vote strategically, my fellow liberals!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Bush and Kerry both have many serious problems, many of them the same problems -- but if you actually believe that they are identical, that which of them wins will not have a profound effect on the world -- then you are either living in a cave, or are blinded by ideology.
If nothing else, Kerry believes in making decisions based on discernable reality, and Bush believes that we are an empire that can create its own reality, because we're armed to the teeth and on a mission from God. That difference alone is profound.
I would love to have better candidates to vote for, and would love to have more room for more voices in the presidential election. But running and voting for third party candidates is not an effective strategy in theory or in practice -- neither for changing how politics work, nor for swaying the country to your point of view.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Just look at how effective the libertarians have been running their prez candidates for the last umpteen years: our civil liberties have never been safer! (There was that little trifle about habeus corpus, but who needed due process of law anyway?)
Until we start using a more intelligent algorithm for casting and counting votes, third parties in national elections will remain a losing proposition. There was a lengthy discussion on this topic attached to an earlier article.
Here are my comments regarding "So even if the Department of Education was constitutional--and it clearly is not--we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient."
That's kind of a scary thing to read, but consider this. That's only part of his plan. Perhaps with the completion of his whole plan, it could work, with people helping other people who can't afford school.
Also, please consider this. Unlike the current top two politicians, he's not trying to become President in order for power and control. Badnarik seems to care about the issues, instead of providing false promises in order to become leader of the third largest country in the world.
Couple of points:
So, Libertarians agree with the anarchists: total personal liberity is an ideal. But, the Libertarians don't take the governmental acualisation of this imperative as a finality.
Couple of things, the first of which is annoying. There are _l_ibertarians and _L_ibertarians. The Libertarian Party does not represent everyone who calls themselves libertarians, which stands in contrast to the term, "Republican", for instance. Everyone qualified to vote in the U.S. is both a republican, and a democrat, by virtue of birth or naturalization, but they break up on the capital letters. Sorry if you already know this, but it is an important distiction.
Second point: I believe you're attempting to triangulate on things by sweeping the dial from side to side, so to speak. By doing so, you're missing the point, in subtle ways. People who call themselves 'libertarians' disagree on many, many points, but the fundamental point of agreement that makes one a libertarian is this: 'relations betweeen people should be voluntary'.
Note that there is no statement about 'total personal liberty' or anything along those lines. Seeking off in that direction doesn't lead to libertarian thought - it leads to, as you said, anarchism.
The difference is that the anarchist will let someone drown, because, hey? maybe they wanted to, whereas the libertarian will pull them out, and then bill them. Old joke, but it does illustrate part of the difference.
However, we've reached a similar and equally insoluble situation. For the sake of good measure: Anarchists(if one could imagine utilitarianistic anarchists -- they sure wouldn't have too much problem coming to a conclusion utilitarianisticly - ha!) would say "no laws!" Marxist-Leninists would say something else, distinguishably none that defend private property etc. Again, it becomes a matter of ideology/beleif of what a functional society is/what is a moral imperative etc. Sometimes I think I should be studying philosophy instead of physics, particularly right now when i should be studing for midterms. Oh well, I can consider this leisure time. But what a sad Friday evening that makes this...
Actually, I think your mistake is in thinking of names like 'libertarian' being things that describe certain points on a series of sliders. While it is true that some theories of governance would result in more or fewer laws, the point is what sort of laws are in place. There are factions of Christians who want almost no law, other than the ten commandments. Hey, almost no law, right? Until you're obligated to kill your daughter for making out with a boy. (No, I'm not kidding.) (To be clear, I'm also not bashing christians - I'm not one, but some of my best friends, etc. No, really, a person very close to me is an Episcopal, and her take I respect heavily.) The point is that the matters of public law should be aligned with what makes sense, and less is better.
Are you being compelled to do something? That is wrong.
Is someone stealing from you? That is wrong.
Are you killing yourself slowly with drugs? That's not good, but that's your business.
Did you take up a collection to fund a hiway? Great. Enjoy it.
There are problematic issues, involving national defense, game theory, and public goods. Libertarians tend to believe they're soluble, but they are there.
(BTW, the concept of 'utilitarian anarchist' isn't as goofy as you think- google 'anacho-syndicalist'. While it doesn't make a cohesive philosohy, people do try.)
I forget what 8 was for.
"Natural Rights" in the sense that Americans understand them were discussed at length by John Locke back in the late 1600's.
If you get a chance to check out his Second Treatise , you will see these writings that heavily influenced America's founding fathers. In fact, if you read the Declaration of Independence closely, you will find that some of it was cribbed word for word from Locke!
Its my responsibility as a human? I guess I missed that memo..
In case you missed the clue there, your idea of responsibility is only an opinion, one that you shouldn't hold as absolute fact.
but if you actually believe that they are identical, that which of them wins will not have a profound effect on the world -- then you are either living in a cave, or are blinded by ideology.
And you are blinded by rhetoric. Sure there are differences. They each say they will do things very differently. In their actions though that are quite similar. A profound effect on the world? What do you think Kerry is going to do differently? Until running for the Presidency he practically supported Bush in every crappy decision he has made. Only recently has he tried to creat differences. It is all just so much campaign speech.
If nothing else, Kerry believes in making decisions based on discernable reality, and Bush believes that we are an empire that can create its own reality, because we're armed to the teeth and on a mission from God. That difference alone is profound.
First up, they both are career politicians, they make decisions entirely based on what will be good for their political career, nothing more. But let's pretend either has integrity....
Ok, so their thought processes are different. If this translates into differences in action why do we not see it? They both supported the war in Iraq, they both are opposed to gay marriage, they both supported the Patriot act.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Just look at how effective the libertarians have been running their prez candidates for the last umpteen years: our civil liberties have never been safer! (There was that little trifle about habeus corpus, but who needed due process of law anyway?)
Interesting you would pick that topic, please show me where Kerry has a better record on civil liberties than Bush. Heck in recent days his speaches have become more "let's beat those bad terrorists" and "we will never back down" to the point where they might as well have the same speech writer.
Until we start using a more intelligent algorithm for casting and counting votes, third parties in national elections will remain a losing proposition.
Maybe, but as I think the state of the union will suck under either I am at least going to cast my ballot in such a way that I do not feel dirty on Nov 2nd.
Finkployd
No, I'm basing my opinion on my observations of their behavior.
Kerry is cutting an electable middle ground in his rhetoric -- that is what politicians do. But based on how he has voted in the past, and what he has said when he wasn't under the limelight, I honestly believe that, had he been president for the last four years:
- We would not have invaded Iraq. (His views on war, while much too hawkish for my taste, are at least practical and reality-based.)
- The government would not have asserted the right to keep detain prisoners indefinitely without trial. (Kerry is a big fan of law enforcement, but also of the process of law.)
- Congress would not have increased the tax burden (total amount of money that taxpayers will have to shell out) by passing massive tax cuts while increasing spending.
First up, they both are career politicians, they make decisions entirely based on what will be good for their political career, nothing moreWrong. First, GWB is not a career politicians. He has only been in politics for a decade, and this is only the second elected office he's held.
Second, political expediency drives his speechwriters, but not his actions. Rather, he bends political expedience to match the actions he has also chosen. He honestly believes he is God's messenger and the United States is an empire with a divine mandate, and no facts -- neither political nor empirical -- change his mind when he is on one of his missions. No, I am not making this up.
Want to know what would make me feel dirty? Knowing that I had a chance to get that man out of power, and threw it away on a symbolic gesture so I'd feel "clean."
You may believe that is what would happen if Kerry were president, but it is all just speculation, as is my belief. What it boils down to with Kerry is the same for me as Bush, I don't like his politics. The only difference between us is that I do not believe it is so important to get Bush out of office that I would want someone like Kerry in it. Don't get me wrong, I want Bush out of office, just not at any cost.
I don't buy that Bush believes he is some messenger of God (and a nytimes article is not going to convince me). He is a power hungry puppet who is falling all over himself to use the US to help those who put him into power (his Dad's and VP's companies, not to mention the Saudis). Now Ashcroft, I'll buy that about him, but I can't help but think the religious angle from Bush is just another ploy to garner support from the ultra right (like the "out of nowhere" marriage amendment).
Also, lets put this in prespective. I am a conservative, at least fiscally. Socially I am pretty much all over the map but I would say I am mostly liberal in this area. Last time I voted for Bush because I believed him to be the lesser of two evils. Al "Clipper Chip" Gore was certainly no friend of the security and cryptography industry and that is where I live. As an aside, imagine how betrayed a fiscial conservative feels having supported Bush at one time? The Economist is probably as good an example of this as any.
So if I choose to vote my conscious because I already got burned playing the lesser of two evils game, I am not hurting Kerry I am hurting Bush. You ought to be happy about that. Perhaps if Kerry wins and it turns out he is the corrupt politician I think he is; who will not follow through on any of his rhetoric or end up any better for the US in the long run, you will grow tired of voting for known evil as well. Hopefully that will not be the case but I think I have lost all hope in getting anything positive out of either major party at this point. Look at both of them, do either actually have anyone you think would make a good or even decent president, not just a "less evil" one? It amazes me how much everyone rationalizes the rampant corruption and lack of integrity of those they support just because it is so important to beat the "other guy". Are we happy with this situation or do we just believe we can do nothing to affect it so we will continue to play the little game they provide for us?
This will only change when a critical mass decides to stop going "I really dislike both parties and want the government to change but this election is too important so maybe I will vote for who I really believe in next time" For many on the left, that time was the 2000 election. For many on the right that time is this election. So the law of unintended consequences means that we will end up with people we don't like in office. Real change is never easy, and you have to make a stand somewhere or you just keep playing their games while they play us like puppets.
Damn I get long winded when I am tired.
Finkployd
(I'm going to be offline for a few days, if we continue this it will have to be on monday)
I don't buy that Bush believes he is some messenger of God (and a nytimes article is not going to convince me).
... This will only change when a critical mass decides to stop going "I really dislike both parties and want the government to change but this election is too important so maybe I will vote for who I really believe in next time"
In that respect, then, you are like him: facts don't affect your beliefs. Fair enough. I think you should read the article before you dismiss it.
It amazes me how much everyone rationalizes the rampant corruption and lack of integrity of those they support just because it is so important to beat the "other guy".
No, even then it won't change. Plurality voting pretty much guarantees that we'll have two sprawling coalition parties that are big cesspools of power; no principled candidate can effectively manage a quorum in a plurality vote. (I really recommend reading that other thread I linked to if you haven't yet.) Until we switch to some kind of rank-order voting system that makes it strategically effective to vote for third parties, tactical voting for candidates who can win is the only rational choice.
Yes, you always get burned playing the lesser of two evils game. That is, unfortunately, the nature of our voting situation. But to twist the popular catch phrase: the lesser of two evils is still lesser.
My opinion: instead of wasting time and money running third party candidates who can't win (and who wouldn't really change the problem of unacceptable compromise if they could), we should put our energies into lobbying for a rank-order voting system (Condorcet is popular with the cool kids these days).
...that two friends.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I'm a libertarian, but Badnarik is a bit of a loon. The libertarian party needs to present more respectable candidates if they ever want to gain any popularity.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I'm glad Badnarik won the LP nomination - if nothing else it shows that the dream of Everyman being able to run for the Presidency is still alive in some manner in 2004. But Judge Jim Gray would be considered a serious candidate running as a Republican or a Democrat.
There is slow change coming in the LP. I think some enlightened people in the party are struggling against the lunatics that want to privatize and abolish everything in sight. The LP platform is getting rewritten so it doesnt read like a anarchist's cookbook, and I think Badnarik is going to be the "last of the old guard" type libertarians to run.
Look for the LP to finally throw off it's chains put on it by the freakshows and anarchists and get it act together between now and 2008.
wish I had an account and some karma, 'cause this man speaks the truth.
Some would argue that massive Gov't spending as a result of the war got us out of the depression, but that ignores the huge profits american companies were making selling arms to both sides in that war. The question nobody's asking though is if everyone's willing to work and buy stuff, why is there ever a depression/recession?
I thought this was a pretty good article, and it sure seems to have sparked a lot of debate among slashdotter's regarding libertarian beliefs vs socialist arguments for the 'common good'. If nothing else, Badnarik has advanced the LP just by creating this kind of debate, and getting people to think about how the government is supposed to work.