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."
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?
"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.
"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...
And that's just the people that have the balls to vote third party. I'm sure there are even more who live in a swing state and would rather vote against the worst candidate than vote how they really feel. Not to mention all of the people who have never even heard of the 3rd party candidates thanks to the media.
People will flip out in rage against the tobacco industry if they hear a statistic like "20,000 people die every year from second hand smoke," but if you hear "one million people are so fed up that they voted Libertarian" it gets shrugged off.
Sorry for the pathetic metaphor, but small percentages can still be big numbers, especially when those small percentages are drastically more informed than your typical voter.
You're trolling, but this is actually a good criticism of a first-past-the-post voting system (the kind we currently have).
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
Makes sense to me. Women are equal these days (something I agree with, btw), so they ought to be equal in responsibility as well.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
I thought it was mandatory civil service for all Americans regardless of if we were at war. This doesn't necessarily mean joining the army. The official title of the bill was:
"To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
I was discussing politics with some friends the other day, and the LP came up. One of them said, "Oh those guys are really out there. They want to get rid of driver's licenses". I love what the LP stands for, but this one was new to me. So I sat there thinking about whether or not this could be true.
To my surprise, I was totally unable to come up with an argument for keeping the DMV around. Its stated goal, of ensuring that only qualified people drive, is clearly total bullshit. They don't require any testing beyond vision after your 16th birthday, and lack of a driver's license isn't capable of keeping someone with hands, feet, and a key from driving anyway. On top of which, nobody likes the DMV (wasn't there a song by Primus along those lines?) and they're an expensive agency for a state to run. And on the flip side, a driver's license is a de facto ID card. It requires you to keep the government informed of where you live at all times, and makes it really easy for traffic cops to turn ticketing into a money racket.
Dyolf Knip