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
"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...
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...
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
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.