Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ask Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:03 PM
from the make-your-voice-heard dept.
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.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • First Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Oculus Habent (562837) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <tnebah.suluco>> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:04PM (#10236996) Journal
    Other than winning, what hopes do you have for the Libertarian Party in the 2004 election?
    • I have a question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rd_syringe (793064) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:34PM (#10237381) Journal
      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?
  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sethadam1 (530629) * <adam@@@firsttube...com> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:05PM (#10237002) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by celeritas_2 (750289) <ranmyaku@gmail.com> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:08PM (#10237051)
      How about: How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple canidates and not just two?
        • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

          by lucabrasi999 (585141) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:18PM (#10237185) Journal
          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 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TykeClone (668449) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:34PM (#10237383) Homepage Journal
          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.

  • by FriedTurkey (761642) * on Monday September 13 2004, @12:05PM (#10237011)
    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?
      • by lucabrasi999 (585141) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:15PM (#10237142) Journal

        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?

        • by sdjunky (586961) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:21PM (#10237225)
          "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?
  • Regarding your description of free trade vs. state corporatism at your website [badnarik.org], 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?
  • Where are we headed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumRiff (120817) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:06PM (#10237020)
    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?
  • by nlinecomputers (602059) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:07PM (#10237026)
    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?
    • by TheWickedKingJeremy (578077) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:22PM (#10237242) Homepage
      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.
  • Regulation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13 2004, @12:07PM (#10237031)
    Mr. Badnarik, as president, would you support breaking up monopolies such as Microsoft to enable competition?

    Thank you.
  • In my experience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <[michaelmtripp] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:07PM (#10237043) Homepage
    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.
  • Induce our vote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tod_miller (792541) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:07PM (#10237044) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by keiferb (267153) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:08PM (#10237045) Homepage
    What's your view on the Patriot act? What, if any, parts do you think need to be changed, and why?
  • 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?
  • by ellem (147712) * <[ellem52] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:08PM (#10237050) Homepage Journal
    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)?
  • by zzyzx (15139) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:08PM (#10237055) Homepage
    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.
  • by Eric Seppanen (79060) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:09PM (#10237056) Homepage
    Some background information: Dark Horse on the Third Ballot [libertyunbound.com]
    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.

    • by Peyna (14792) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:16PM (#10237160) Homepage
      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?
    • by Chess_the_cat (653159) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:24PM (#10237268) Homepage
      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 [irs.gov] clearly outlines where the IRS gets it's authority and why US citizens must pay income tax.

  • by pegr (46683) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:09PM (#10237057) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • 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? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikeee (137160) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:11PM (#10237085)
    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?
  • by discovercomics (246851) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:11PM (#10237092) Homepage
    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?
  • Howard Stern (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ellem (147712) * <[ellem52] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:12PM (#10237103) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by zzyzx (15139) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:12PM (#10237107) Homepage
    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?
  • How about... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gfxguy (98788) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:13PM (#10237118)
    Could you explain your belief that the United States is to blame for 9/11?
  • by philipdl71 (160261) <slashdot.yhbt@com> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:13PM (#10237123) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:13PM (#10237124) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13 2004, @12:13PM (#10237126)
    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"?

  • Federal Regulators. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Irvu (248207) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:15PM (#10237138)
    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?
  • 320.5 (Score:5, Funny)

    by sudotcsh (95997) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:15PM (#10237140)
    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.
  • Morality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Milo Fungus (232863) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:18PM (#10237176) Homepage

    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? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sharkb8 (723587) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:18PM (#10237179)
    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?
  • Non-compete clauses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zzyzx (15139) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:19PM (#10237197) Homepage
    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?
  • timing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by j1mmy (43634) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:20PM (#10237203) Journal
    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.
  • by geoff313 (718010) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:20PM (#10237208) Journal
    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? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Monday September 13 2004, @12:20PM (#10237210) Journal
    Why are you for unlimited immigration with no caps and no requirments?
  • by Sanity (1431) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:20PM (#10237211) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sotogonesu (705553) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:21PM (#10237223)
    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?
  • by catbutt (469582) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:22PM (#10237248)
    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 [wikipedia.org]), or would you prefer pretend the problem is not there, and not worry what damage is caused by your running for office?
  • by SiliconEntity (448450) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:25PM (#10237278)
    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?
  • by scorp1us (235526) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:27PM (#10237299) Journal
    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?
  • Copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HolyCoitus (658601) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:29PM (#10237335)
    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 [ttu.edu] 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?
  • by starphish (256015) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:31PM (#10237348) Homepage
    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?
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:35PM (#10237391) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • Cost of Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baldrson (78598) on Monday September 13 2004, @12:38PM (#10237424) Homepage Journal
    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?