Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik Answers 1325
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting) by celeritas_2 (750289) (#10237051)
How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple candidates and not just two?
It's a long, hard, uphill battle. A lot of Americans don't know that until the 1890s, the government didn't print ballots at all. Voters wrote their own, or used pre-printed ballots provided by the party of their choice. The adoption of the "Australian ballot" gave the politicians control of what choices were put in front of voters.
Today, the Libertarian Party -- and other third parties, of course -- have to fight to get on the ballot. In some states, we have to gather enormous numbers of signatures. In others, we have to drag the state to court. We've been very active on this front. In 1980, 1992, 1996 and 2000, the Libertarian Party's candidates appeared on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This year, it's 48 states and DC -- we missed the signature requirement in New Hampshire and are in court in Oklahoma.
A better question, of course, is how do we offer the American people REAL choices -- choices they can vote for without fearing that their vote will be "wasted" on a candidate who "can't win?"
There are various alternative voting systems that address this problem.
Instant Runoff Voting allows the voter to assign a rank to each candidate; if no candidate gets a majority of "first place" votes, then "second place" votes are counted, and so on, until someone gets a majority. This allows people to choose a "third party" candidate as their first preference, but still get a vote between frontrunners if their candidate loses.
Personally, I prefer Approval Voting. In this method, each voter can select as many candidates as he likes -- he can vote for all the candidates whom he can live with. All of the votes are counted, and the candidate with the most votes wins. The result is that the winner is not necessarily "the most popular," but "the one that the most voters are okay with."
Of course, the "major" parties don't approve of anything that might threaten to break their shared monopoly on power. That's why they've instituted the Australian ballot and draconian ballot access laws. But we'll keep fighting them until we win.
timing (Score:5, Interesting) by j1mmy (43634)
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.
I guess my first response to that has to be that for a Libertarian to be elected to the White House right now would indicate massive social upheaval already. Yes, my ideas are radical -- but my election would prove that America is ready for radical solutions.
You're right, though. It isn't as simple as that. Stating my goals and what I'd attempt to do is not the same as stating what would happen. The presidency is an office of limited power, and I'd actually spend a good deal of time struggling with Congress and the courts to get my solutions implemented, giving Americans time to prepare for the changes.
Of course, with some of the changes I'm proposing, I've set a longer timeline on anyway. With American troops in more than 135 countries around the globe, I don't plan to just buy them all airline tickets and tell them to catch the next plane home. My plan for Iraq is a 90-day phased withdrawal concentrating on the physical security of the troops. For drawing down the US military presence in Germany, Korea, Japan and elsewhere, I've proposed a two-year timeline, with the first actual troop pullouts beginning at the end of the first year. That's quicker than George W. Bush's 10-year timeline, but it isn't unduly hasty.
My expectation is that if we eliminate the Fed's monopoly on currency provision, the Fed will continue exist -- it will just have to compete with other currency options on a truly level playing field without the government demanding that its currency be accepted instead of others. People can decide whether they want to hold their wealth in green pieces of paper backed only by seven trillion dollars in debt, or in currency coined of, or backed by, some scarce commodity. I'm not planning to haul Alan Greenspan and the Board of Governors off to Indiana for death by lethal injection or anything like that.
My job as a candidate is to articulate a vision of the changes I propose and to argue forcefully for their implementation. The checks and balances which our nation's founders wrote into the Constitution provide a framework in which those changes can be implemented with the minimum possible chaos.
How to reform Electoral College? (Score:5, Interesting) by code_rage (130128)
There have been proposals to eliminate the electoral college. Notably, Slate has run a series of pieces calling it "America's worst college." Slate's coverage has examined some of the political difficulties in trying to change the system and has proposed some possible solutions.
It's clear from the results of 1992 that the electoral college, as currently implemented at the national and state level, tends to turn small spreads into large ones, and eliminates 3rd parties altogether. As a 3rd party candidate, this must be an important issue to you (after ballot access, perhaps the most important one).
How do you propose to address this? Would you support an amendment to the US Constitution to abolish the Electors in favor of direct popular vote? Or, would it make more sense to address it state by state, using legislation to split the electors proportionately within each state (as Maine and Nebraska do)?
I have to tell you that I'm skeptical of electoral college reform at the federal level. Yes, the system has flaws, but I haven't seen any alternative proposals that don't have serious flaws themselves.
On the state level, I do advocate choosing electors by congressional district as Maine and Nebraska do, with the two non-district electors going to the overall winner of the popular vote. That would be more reflective of overall American voter sentiment.
Going to a straight popular vote would, perversely, represent the end of American democracy. Candidates would be inclined to cater to a few urban areas where they can buy the most votes for their buck (or their promise), effectively disenfranchising rural voters. To the extent that the presidency is a representative office, it should represent Peoria and Birmingham as much as it represents New York and Los Angeles.
"Should have gone to..." (Score:4, Interesting) DrEldarion (114072) (#)
When somebody you strongly dislike is running, it's very tempting to vote for the person who is more likely to win against them rather than the person whose views you agree with more.
What is your response to the people who say that a vote given to a third-party candidate is wasted and should have gone to one of the main two parties, if only to make sure that the "bad candidate" doesn't win?
If the "wasted vote" argument ever held any water, it doesn't any more. The two major parties have moved toward a weird, non-existent "center" for the last 50 years, to the point where it's difficult to tell them apart.
We could argue all day about whether Bush or Kerry is the "lesser evil." The fact is that they both support the war in Iraq. They both oppose gun rights. They both supported the PATRIOT Act. They both support the war on drugs. They both support confiscatory taxation. They both support ruinously high levels of spending, huge deficits and increasing debt.
It's hard to tell them apart on the real issues. They spend their time scrapping over "swing votes" in the gray area of the "center" -- which means, in practice, "how do I not make too many people too angry to vote for me?" That's no way to do politics. Politics, in my view, should be as unimportant as possible -- but where it's important, it has to value freedom, remain rooted in principle and be forward-looking.
All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil. If you don't like the way things are, how do you change it by voting for more of the same?
Ideology vs pragmatism (Score:4, Interesting) by Charles Dodgeson (248492)
Libertarianism certainly is an appealing ideology, but are you concerned that ideological based politics (whether yours or others) often precludes the adoption of pragmatic solutions to real problems?
I guess that depends on the ideology ;-)
Seriously, all politics is ideology-based. Unthinking majoritarianism, Machiavellian strategizing and centrist compromise are ideologies too. If they weren't ideologies 100 years ago, they are now, because they are the lodestones which guide our politicians' every action. And you see where that's gotten us.
I'm not an impractical man. I know that I can't snap my fingers and get the results that I want without consequence. I realize that my ideas will face resistance in implementation. The extent to which I am willing to compromise is that I'm willing to fight for what I can get, and wait for the rest only as long as absolutely necessary. What I'm not willing to do is abandon my goals or trade them away.
My approach is geared to a single criterion -- does this policy or that action serve freedom? I'm willing to be pragmatic in pursuing policies that affirmatively answer that criterion. I'm not willing to compromise that criterion away.
Are some free trade restrictions necessary? (Score:5, Interesting) by toasted_calamari (670180)
Regarding your description of free trade vs. state corporatism at your website, 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?
"Free trade," like any other term, is often coopted to mean something other than what it should. In the context of modern America and the globalization phenomenon, it is often used to refer to a web of regulations, restrictions, subsidies, government-created monopolies and privileges. That's not free trade.
First, let's look at the nature of corporations. They come into existence with the grant of a government charter. They sell stock under the auspices and pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In court, they are treated as "persons" with "rights" -- and for purposes of liability, their stockholders are held harmless beyond the value of their stock itself.
A market in which single proprietorships and partnerships must compete against what are essentially mini-branches of government, with all the attendant privileges and immunities, isn't a free market. It's a rigged game.
I don't oppose growth or success. I support unrestricted trade across international borders, and I support companies developing themselves internationally. But the fact is that corporate growth today isn't natural market growth. It's growth encouraged and enhanced by government-dispensed privilege. It's artificial, and it distorts rather than serves the market.
We need to restore justice to the system. Stockholders are owners, and should be liable for the consequences of that ownership like any other owners. I have no doubt that the market will come up with "portfolio insurance" to protect the stockholders from ruinous claims, but that in itself will provide a market check on unrestrained, unaccountable growth -- companies which act irresponsibly will find that their stockholders can't buy, or have to pay unreasonably high, insurance premiums, and therefore aren't interested in having the stock.
Corporations don't have rights and don't face consequences. People do. Tinkering with that has been disastrous. It's time to get back to full responsibility for individuals instead of government privilege for corporations.
Intellectual Property (Score:5, Interesting) by geoff313 (718010)
As the official Libertarian party candidate 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?
I think the issue is moving too fast for true polarization within the Libertarian Party. Libertarians hold disparate views on intellectual property, but we also realize that it's an issue that will resolve itself as time goes on.
The Constitution empowers Congress to protect intellectual property with copyright and patent laws. Sans a constitutional amendment, they'll continue to grapple with the problems that the new technologies represent. And they'll probably make mistakes, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
But, ultimately, the marketplace will decide how intellectual property is handled. The "file-sharing wars" are proving that. How much money have the older firms put into trying to pour new wine -- MP3s, CD burners, peer-to-peer networks -- into the old skins of copyright law? They've done some damage, but they've been completely ineffective in forcing the market into their preconceived notions of how it should operate.
I can't give you a more substantive answer about intellectual property. It's an issue that I've thought about a lot, but the only conclusion I've come to is that freedom will out -- and that we'll know what that freedom looks like when the smoke clears.
Induce our vote (Score:5, Interesting) by tod_miller (792541)
What are you views and hopes for privacy and security for the citizens of the internet age, and how do you proactively aim to safeguard and give back our rights that have been eroded away. (INDUCE act, PATRIOT act, et al)
I'm firmly on record as opposed to the PATRIOT Act and the INDUCE Act. As president, I'd veto those acts or renewals or extensions of them, and I'd direct the Justice Department not to avail themselves of their unconstitutional provisions and to fight them in court where necessary.
In the larger realm of privacy, it's already apparent to me that the good guys are going to triumph. Strong crypto, a robust movement to provide privacy solutions to ordinary people by the Free Software Movement and others, and ongoing resistance to invasions of privacy are winning the battle. It's just hard to see that right now, when there's so much blood on the floor.
As a politician, my job is to sign the surrender papers -- to get government to stop trying to ride roughshod over your rights. You're going to win either way. I'm just the candidate who recognizes that, who thinks it's a good thing, and who's ready to proclaim the ceasefire.
How do you enforce rights in an ownership society? (Score:5, Interesting) by zzyzx (15139)
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?
You seem to be referring to what we call "real property" -- land. There are all kinds of property. The Internet connection I'm using to post these answers is my property in the sense that I have purchased that part of the bundle of rights attached to it for the purpose of sending my answers over it.
Even in a libertarian society where all property is privately owned, there will be distinct incentives for its owners to allow, even encourage, free speech. It's not a matter of me owning an acre and telling you that you can't talk there.
If I want sell you a piece of pen and paper, will you buy it if I say "you can't write a political tract on it?"
Will you buy your Internet service from me if I prohibit you from pointing your web browser at Slashdot?
And if I do either of those things, do you think it unlikely that you'll be able to find someone else to sell you those things without those restrictions?
In a libertarian society, more people will own more things than ever before. But owning something doesn't reduce it to a static, unchanging quantity. Things are used -- they're traded on the market -- and the desire to profit from doing so is the best guarantor of all that property owners will encourage free speech. It's just good business.
PATRIOT act (Score:5, Interesting) by keiferb (267153)
What's your view on the Patriot act? What, if any, parts do you think need to be changed, and why?
The whole thing needs to be repealed.
The PATRIOT Act removes the "governor" from the engine -- it lifts needed restrictions on the use of government power. It makes law enforcement and the bureaucracy unaccountable for their actions.
In my view, the bounds set by the Constitution are entirely compatible with the powers that law enforcement legitimately needs. Letting government run outside those bounds doesn't enhance our security -- it just compromises our liberty.
Where are we headed? (Score:5, Interesting) by QuantumRiff (120817)
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?
David Nolan, the founder of the Libertarian Party, is fond of pointing out that history seems to run in cycles of 70 years or so. We rebelled against the British and set up our own nation. 70 years later, we fought the War Between the States. 70 years after that, the Depression and the New Deal. If Nolan is right, and I don't find any fault in his logic, we're about at the end of a natural societal cycle. Barriers are breaking down and new things are coming.
To put it bluntly, I don't think that sticking with "our current leadership" is an option. Look at the questions you're asking me. Do we ditch the electoral college? How do we handle intellectual property? What about globalization? How do we reform our method of choosing those who govern? Those are questions that reflect a society in the throes of change.
As my friend L. Neil Smith puts it, "a great explosion is coming." As a matter of fact, we're right in the middle of it and it's hard to see what shape things are going to take when the smoke clears.
I see the next decade or so as a time of change, whether we like it or not. If Americans try to stick to the old way of doing things, the dislocation will last longer, be more disruptive and possibly tip us over into totalitarianism or some other nightmarish societal paradigm. If they adopt the libertarian way of doing things, it will be shorter, not as disruptive -- and usher in a better era to follow.
The broadest step I've taken is to run for the presidency. With the support of my party, I'm offering Americans a chance to peacefully transition back to policies that served America well for more than a century -- free trade, a non-interventionist foreign policy, minimal government, minimal taxes, maximum freedom -- rationalized into the paradigm of the 21st century.
If I'm elected, I'll do my utmost to implement those policies.
If the current leadership continues in power, they'll continue their efforts to snuff out what remains of American freedom in the name of national security, health security, job security, social security. They're offering you the security state. I'm offering you freedom.
War on Iraq and other dictatorships (Score:5, Interesting) by philipdl71 (160261)
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?
If Iraq had posed a clear and present danger to the United States, and if Congress had declared war and thus empowered the president to act in the nation's defense, that would be one thing, although some of the corollaries to that action might still be problematic.
But Iraq didn't pose a clear and present danger to the United States. It didn't pose a danger to the United States at all. And the US has not, in fact, "liberated" the people of Iraq. They still have a dictator. For awhile, his name was Bremer. Now it's Allawi. And the US has the innocent blood of thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,000 of its own young men and women on its hands.
If you or I want to unseat or kill a thug like Saddam Hussein, we're morally free to do so. He's a tyrant and a murderer. We'd only be acting on behalf of his victims.
Once we bring other people unwillingly into the equation, it gets more complex. We don't have a right to kill the innocent. We don't have a right to pick our neighbors' pockets to finance the project. We don't have a right to conscript their children into our army, as some in Congress are now advocating.
As an aspiring president, my interests have to be the interests of the United States. As a Libertarian, my priority has to be pursuing those interests in a manner consistent with freedom and without initiating force -- against anyone.
One of the questions above mentions pragmatism, and this is an issue where it comes into play. From both a pragmatic and principled perspective, the best foreign policy is one of non-intervention: Refusing to interfere in the internal affairs of, or intervene in the disputes of, other nations. From a pragmatic perspective, it's the best approach for the security of the United States. From a principled perspective, it avoids violating the rights of others.
That doesn't mean that I have to like Saddam Hussein. It just means that the legitimate interests of the United states are not served, nor are the legitimate rights of Americans and Iraqis respected, by invading and occupying Iraq.
Nuclear proliferation (Score:5, Interesting) by SiliconEntity (448450)
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?
I think the nuclear issue is somewhat overblown -- no pun intended.
The nuclear cat is out of the bag. That's the way it is. The world is therefore a more dangerous place, but let's not lose our heads.
If you look at history, only one country has ever used atomic or nuclear weapons in war. That country is the United States.
The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons and considered itself the arch-enemy of the US. Yet they never unleashed nuclear weapons on us. Ditto for China.
Pakistan and India have a history of 50 years of conflict. They're both nuclear powers. Yet they haven't used those arms. Israel has nuclear weapons, is surrounded by enemies and has had to fight for its very survival, yet has not used them.
The fact is that becoming a nuclear power entails a certain "growing up" on the part of nations. They suddenly realize that the stakes aren't a transient gain or a temporary loss, but the destruction of their entire nation. And so they keep those weapons as a deterrent and those weapons are never actually used.
I don't see any reason to believe that North Korea or Iran will be exceptions. They'll rattle their nuclear sabres to enhance their influence in their respective regions. They'll hold them up as a deterrent to attack by their enemies. But they won't just start popping nukes because they have them.
The real proliferation problem is the possibility that terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons. And the best solution, although not a perfect one, to that is to not give marginal nuclear powers reason to fear us and to want to support those terrorists.
The Environment (Score:5, Interesting) by Sotogonesu (705553)
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?
Actually, there's a section on my web site which specifically addresses environmental concerns:
http://www.badnarik.org/Why/Environmentalists.php
I also have a new position paper on these issues. It just hadn't made it up on the campaign site yet when you asked the question. Here's a URL for it at the League of Women Voters' site:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/e4/dnets/?sid=103952&id=119699
The short answer to your question is that I'd work to get the government out of the business of polluting, selling "rights" to pollute and protecting polluters from suits for damage. I'd also work to get wilderness lands into the hands of private groups who want to preserve them.
Privatizing Education (Score:5, Interesting) by EvilJello203 (749510)
The Libertarian Party platform advocates separation of education and state. How would you go about reforming the nation's educational system without a massive disruption to a student's schoolwork?
I don't think that a transition from government schooling to market schooling would be particularly disruptive in that respect. "Public" education has been such an unmitigated disaster that most children would almost immediately be well ahead of where they had been when the transition took place.
Ever since the inception of government schooling in the 19th century under Horace Mann, the US has been on a downward trend in literacy, numeracy and science learning. Sometimes that trend is briefly halted, but it always continues. To the extent that there might be some mild upheaval, it seems to me that the more quickly we exit the downward spiral, the shorter the climb back up will be.
What's your position on outsourcing/immigration? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Whatsmynickname (557867)
What's your position on illegal immigration and/or outsourcing? I would think a libertarian would say "keep the gov't out of it". However, at some point, doesn't having too much of either outsourcing or illegal immigration ultimately impact our national socio-economic stability?
We have two -- actually three -- separate issues here. I'll handle outsourcing first.
Capital migrates to where it is most profitably invested. That's just a fact of the market. If I can get a 10% return in Country A and a 25% return in Country B, you know where I'll be investing.
We can deal with that reality, or we can fight it. If we fight it, we'll lose. The future is not in trying to restrict trade or outlaw outsourcing -- it's in allowing innovation and competition, and in removing government impediments, like high taxes and expensive regulation, to keeping jobs here.
When a particular job or skill _does_ move offshore, all other things being equal, it merely frees Americans -- the most productive workers in the world -- to develop the NEXT job or skill or to come up with a more efficient, profitable way of providing the old one. And those innovations are make us the wealthiest country in the world. Instead of wondering where our jobs sewing soles on shoes went, we should be looking to what we can do that the sewing machine operator in Korea CAN'T do yet.
People also migrate to where they can make the most for their labor. Once again, that's just a fact of the market. One can hardly expect a Mexican agricultural laborer to work for $2.00 a day in Guadalajara when he can make $8.00 an hour in the San Joaquin Valley.
And, once again, we can deal with that reality or we can fight it -- and if we fight it, we'll lose.
Legal immigration is a net economic benefit to our country. The fact that workers come here to pick our crops, work in our poultry plants, -- even take coding jobs at computer firms -- lowers the cost of the goods and services we buy, and frees us up to pursue ever more profitable opportunities. That may be cold comfort to a particular worker who's just been sent home while an Indian on an H-2 visa sits down at his old workstation, but it's a fact. If that worker hadn't come to the job, the job would have gone to him via outsourcing -- or it would have gone undone because the profit margin was unattractive by comparison to other investments in labor.
I advocate lifting all restrictions on peaceful immigration. Immigration is not something we can stop. We might as well get the benefit of it instead of tying ourselves into knots fighting it.
This brings up the third issue: Borders. Some people believe that lifting immigration restrictions implies "open borders." That's like saying that an invitation to my house means it's okay for you to crawl through my bedroom window at four in the morning.
Immigrants should be welcome to come here -- as long as they're willing to come in through the front door. They should enter the US through a Customs and Immigration checkpoint, identify themselves, and let us verify that they aren't terrorists or criminals.
People who come across our borders at remote locations under cover of darkness, when they were free to enter through the front door, aren't immigrants. They're invaders. Illegal immigration creates an industry of "coyotes" to guide people across, and it provides cover for the non-peaceful -- terrorists and criminals -- to enter the country.
The border is a national security feature. I propose to treat it as such. In tandem with lifting immigration restrictions, I'd free our military to defend the border against invaders. And those invaders would no longer have a place to hide among real immigrants, or an underlying infrastructure of support for getting them across, because the peaceful immigrants would be entering legitimately.
Thanks for the chance to respond to Slashdot's members. It's been a pleasure!
Related maybe interesting link (Score:5, Interesting)
Hahaha haha aaa haha *snort* (Score:4, Interesting)
Because those groups would pay so much more than those would would drill for oil, or dump garbage, or build massive hotels, etc.
Thanks for the laugh!
Support (Score:5, Interesting)
He wants to government out of our lives as much as possible and that is what we need. Our nation was started with a system of checks and balances, and the last 2 administrations(2 different parties) have stripped away many of the liberties we used to enjoy under the ruse of "protecting intellectual property"(dmca) and "terrorism"(patriot et al).
Please vote for him. We need the percentages to go up to convince people to vote outside of the 2 party system. He may not win this time but if he gets more and more and more, it may become a 3 party system.
Don't look at it as throwing away your vote, but rather as placing your vote with the person that you agree with. It's not a horse race; you don't have to bet on the winner, but rather choose who you would like to see in office the most and let the counts fall where they may.
</rant>
Chris
From The Onion Archives (Score:1, Interesting)
"My vote for Nader will send the people of this country a strong message: George Bush is a bad president."
How true that came to be (along with "Our Long Era of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over").
Sigh....
Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the general problem with third party candidates. They tend to offer amenable political views, but no solid evidence of leadership, capability to serve in a political office, or past track record we can use to judge how they actually act when in political power.
But then again seeing as Badnarik won't concievably be winning this election, I guess how he'd actually do in office shouldn't factor into your decision whether or not to vote for him... right?
Kind of embarassing for Libertarians... (Score:3, Interesting)
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
End of limited liability? (Score:2, Interesting)
What a horrendous idea. It's not enough that a shareholder lose their investment. They have to lose their house as well.
Although this might improve accountability, this would drive the small investor right out of the stock market.
Adding to the problem is the arbitrariness of law suit damages that are now being awarded. They often have no relation to the actual damage done. There is no way an investor can accurately assess the risk.
One thing that constrains law suits is that you can't get a billion dollars out of a million dollar company. Removing limited liability, so that the lawyers can sue the shareholders, would make the Oklahoma land rush look like a trickle.
Re:A libertarian over 18 is a social misfit (Score:3, Interesting)
Build really tall walls along the borders?
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be interesting to hear Bush and Kerry make real answers to real issues instead of fingerpoint and talk about "terrorism" all the time.
It's all about balance. (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly there needs to be some sort of structure implemented by the people to govern themselves. While I do believe that both the Democrats and Republicans are (for the most part) greedy, corrupt and power-hungry, I don't think that a radical Libertarian agenda is correct. What we need is enlightened leadership, which acts in the interest of the people.
Let's face it; our society has many, many problems, not only with education, but with outsourcing, distribution of wealth, government invasions of privacy . . . anyone could go on for hours. The simple fact is that this country needs leadership which is interested in working hard to solve those problems.
The Democrats won't do it, neither will the Republicans, but I'd rather see a slightly stronger government that imposes some regulation and control over corporations, rather than a government that is so powerless that it cannot act in the public interest (which is what I believe would be the case under a Libertarian leadership.)
In the end, it's all about balance.
Newspapers don't support hemp? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lol (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
I've thought for a long time that third parties that want to have a chance in hell of ever getting anywhere in national politics need to start by, for now, pouring their resources into small local elections in which a) there's a lot less money involved, and b) there are a lot fewer voters, so changing just a few people's minds has a reasonable chance of getting your guy elected. If there are a bunch of Libertarian | Green | Reform | Socialist | whatever city councilmen and county commissioners and school board members and
And it does matter. Here in Colorado, we have a Libertarian sheriff, in one of the sparsely populated but very large mountain counties, who has made a real difference by pulling his people out of the War On (Some) Drugs. This isn't the same as, say, bringing the troops home from Iraq -- but it's a real action, which has had a real effect on the lives of real people.
Iraq (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't the US get skewered for doing this after the first gulf war? And in Afganistan? Which is what lead to the rise of the Taliban. Which led to 9/11. How is this not repeating bad decisions which, as we can see from history, will lead to bad consequences?
Re:PoliticalCompass.org (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they can not.
Libertarianism seeks to minimize the extent and regulatory powers of the state and deny special interest groups from achieving political power. Noam Chomasky, Ralph Nader and whonot wants to increase the state's size, reach, power to legislate over private life, forcibly redistribute income, and turn a blind eye/allow union transgressions against both their own members, non-union employees and employers.
That is per definition the antithesis of libertarianism.
Re:Whether or not... (Score:1, Interesting)
1) Ignore the presidential candidates
2) Make careful selections for the other offices
3) Determine which party I picked more of and choose the other presidential candidate.
Now I see another option for #3... Who you vote for president is not nearly as important as the other offices you'll be voting for at the state and federal level. That, and I'd prefer gridlock over further erosion of freedom.
Free Trade (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it is quite difficult for "free trade" unless ALL parties participate. We can't have free trade with the likes of China, because of massive subsidation. Not to mention other, less developed markets would not be able to trade "freely" with us because until those markets develop (with gov't subsidation) they would be crushed out of existence.
"Free" isn't going to be "fair", though there is no law in nature about "fair". The bigger guy almost always wins.
Do you ever get the feeling ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Owners / Drug Developers would be murders (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A libertarian over 18 is a social misfit (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a newflash: government is often evil. Government regularly sucks the cock of corporations. Even when government does good deeds, it often does so in a ruinously inefficient manner.
In a libertarian state you'd have lawsuits where investors and board directors can't hide behind laws exempting them from liability, *enforced by the very government that's supposed to be protecting YOU*. In a libertarian state non-profits and citizen groups wouldn't be hamstrung by a government constantly trying to muzzle them with rules, regulations, and laws designed to make information retrieval and private monitoring of corporate entities damned near impossible.
In a libertarian state investors and board members could find all of their property seized for deliberately releasing a drug with deadly side-effects to the public in pursuit of short-term profit. In a truly libertarian state the people who knew about these side effects and did nothing to sound the alarm would go on trial for murder.
Your ignorance would be astounding if it weren't so common.
Max
Most Productive Workers... (Score:5, Interesting)
The myth that American workers are the most productive (Per Capita GDP) persists...
Actually Luxembourg has the highest PCGDP, nearly 1.5 times the US PCGDP...
The US is nearly identical to Norway, a Social Democracy with universal heatlhcare...
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ra
Cool graph at this one:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp
This one's good too, Most Educated:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ed
US comes in at 14...We should be ashamed...
Re:A libertarian over 18 is a social misfit (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks for demonstrating the benefits of public education there. While the government may keep people from "dieing", it has a very bad track record in education.
One could even present the argument that a group of competing private testing companies would provide more value and safety than one centralized body that isn't accountable for the costs when they screw up.
As far as the FDA's real track record, look up the histories of things like Saccharin, Cyclamates... [junkscience.com]
Look at some of the new science being done about DDT [junkscience.com]
Re:A libertarian over 18 is a social misfit (Score:2, Interesting)
Every regulatory agency has major problems, many of them coming because of nasty directives passed from the legislative and executive branches, but by and large they benefit both companies and consumers (yes, it is possible to benefit both). By forcing companies to behave within certain guidelines it no longer means that you compete by cutting any and all costs. Remember, before the FDA, snake oil salesman was a lucrative form of business (I guess one could argue it still is...). It also benefits consumers because who wants to win 5 million dollars at the cost of their youngest daughter's life!
What insight do Libertarian's provide as to how they will balance the poor and middle classes' ability to protect themselves from a corporation's action? If you don't already have money in a libertarian society, you are even more of a second class citizen then you are in our current society.
You can't expect corporations to behave as anything less than profit-maximizing firms. If they know that it will cost them 2 billion dollars in lawyer's fees and settlements to make 10 billion dollars over the cost of production, then they will do so
I'm not in any way trying to demonize corporations. They behave exactly as they should, as profit maximizing entities. It is our job as consumers and voters to make sure that the profit maximization is only a result of meeting our needs.
Actually getting ellected (Score:4, Interesting)
> it's a place to start.
More importantly, it is the proper place to start. Like the guy said, just getting elected would indicate the sort of groundswell of revolution that would indicate it was time to make the radical changes he advocates, Which won't happen until we have a People fit to govern themselves as their forefathers once did.
You lead by example. The average person no longer knows what it means to be Free and frankly, the idea scares them. We need Libertarians who have the "people skills" for it to get out and run for local offices, then start making a difference. Those of us who lack the skills to be a successfull pol can provide support. This will show the more mainstream voters that:
1. Libertarians aren't just drug legalizing notcases. This factor should not be underestimated. Those tend to be the loudest voices and the mainstream press makes sure they are the ones the average voter sees.
2. Libertarian policies can actually be implemented in the real world. (Although truthfully, a lot of what passes for "libertarian" thought won't actually work, but weeding that stuff out is a lot less painful in a county government setting than a governor or national office going off into la-la land.)
3. It builds a bench to recruit candidates for higher office from. Where do you thing the Dems and Repubs get most of their candidates? Yup, by watching for new young talent to emerge down in the lower offices.
4. That chaotic Libertarians can actually form a Party. This is important. Regardless of how effective one politician is, it means nothing without a party. See Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Once Ross tired of playing the Reform Party disintegrated because it wasn't a real party, just a cult of personality that couldn't agree on anything, because the only belief they shared was a blind faith in Ross Perot.
Re:End of limited liability? (Score:3, Interesting)
On to address these points (as I see them)...
Although this might improve accountability, this would drive the small investor right out of the stock market.
I think this is a necessary component of things. He is relying on this limitless liability to enforce corporate responsibility. This is obviously important for things such as the life and death of people using the products. It gets more complex when dealing with "intangibles" such as the environment. For instance, a person would sue if a faulty product killed a family member, but who will sue on behalf of the environment? By scaring away small investors, you necisarrily put more emphasis on smaller companies. Only in smaller companies can the investors be as intimatley familiar with operations in order to justify the risk of investing in them. This makes the companies easier to sue for damages to these "intangibles" than large companies with lots of resources.
Again, I'm not sure this works well in practice, but it's the only way I can reason this out. In fact, I'm almost completely against this line of reasoning. I'd much rather have a government that I can reellect every 4 years abusing its power than a company that I have no control over. Giving companies such an advantage just encourages one company to get large enough, and thus be tempted to abuse its power.
7 words to sum up the shititarian drone's answers (Score:0, Interesting)
Bingo! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. It might take 16 to 32 years, but if they can show how their policies have been BENEFICIAL to the cities / counties / states then they'd move up to the next level of government.
But they have to SHOW that their policies can be enacted at the lower levels WITHOUT destroying civilization as we know it. And if they can't do that, then its obvious that they should NOT be president.
I see big talk about big changes, but are there any smaller changes that they can implement at the city/county levels?
Just one issue with the Libertarian platform... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I have to question the Libs' attitude toward drug legalization.
I support the decriminalization of marijuana, on the grounds that someone can smoke pot in their home and I'd never know, let alone be impacted negatively. However, harder drugs (thinking mainly of heroin and crack here) can impact me.
How?
Well, I think it is part of the government's duty (or society's duty) to assure a certain minimum standard of living for everyone. We cannot in good conscience allow people to starve in the streets, or die of diseases that could be treated easily.
Fortunately, nearly everyone of sound body and mind can provide for themselves that standard of living. Unfortunately, because society/government has this duty to itself, and because heroin and crack addicts often cannot provide that for themselves, junkies cost the public coffers (or philanthropists, which is the same thing) money to feed their drug-addicted asses.
The libertarian ideal has everyone providing for themselves and no one relying on the government for support. Unfortunately, I fear that hard-drug legalization will give the government a hard choice: let addicts starve in the streets, or raise taxes to pay for them.
Of course, even if the drugs themselves are legal, encouraging others to use them (i.e. "pushing") should remain illegal, just as tobacco/alcohol advertising should be illegal: it consitutes encouraging another to harm himself. People have the right to shoot themselves in the foot all they want, but not to try to convince others that shooting themselves in the foot is good fun.
Re:I was going to mention that same group (Score:4, Interesting)
The funny thing is (to many people)... I lean to the right on a lot of things, often including the environment. I'm not sure if I'd like the conservation more because of the conservation itself or the red-faced developers blowing a gasket.
A couple of years ago, I heard actor Rick Schroeder in an interview on the radio. He had just bought a ranch off in Wyoming or Montana or somewhere like that, something huge with thousands of acres. He said that when he's home, he likes to go once a day to visit a new acre. How cool is that? He could do that for YEARS and still find something new on a regular basis. I would love to be able to do that.
public resources and Libertarianism? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm curious to know how a Libertarian would deal with the fact that some ubiquitous resources are by definition public, i.e. the air and water.
If I own property where the air is being polluted by a nearby factory, isn't the factory owner infringing upon my property rights? How do Libertarians propose to deal with the fact that someone's actions (ostensibly on "their own" property, if the factory is own their own land) affects everyone else's air?
The same argument can be used about water. How do Libertarians propose to stop landowners from polluting or diverting rivers that go through "their own" property?
To address an issue closer to Slashdotters' hearts, what about the airwaves? How would Libertarians divide the electromagnetic spectrum for broadcast?
Some resources are not neatly divided like land. In the case of air and water, one's actions affect other people, even when those actions are taken, "on one's own property." Unless Libertarianism addresses this issue somehow, I see it as an essential contradiction of the ideology.
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:2, Interesting)
Why don't you actually come up with some valid statements and/or retorts to the Libertarian viewpoint instead of making ridiculous insinuations?
Re:Libertarianism's Failures... (Score:1, Interesting)
It's all tied together. You have to look at how big a corporation can get without blind public investment. When investors are actually responsible for where their money goes, there will be far fewer dollars thrown at these big corporations.
Publicly held corporations are not the same as Privately held companies. These changes will push towards privatisation of companies as well. In addition, when the companies are inherently smaller, they will have to form coalitions instead of having huge international corporate vertical monopolies.
The bottom line of it all is this:
Individual citizens **MUST** be held to account for their own actions. This is the only way that individual freedoms can be protected.
Great replies, but I still won't vote for him. (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said he did put forth some nearly perfect anwsers to the questions. Particularly the Electoral college issue and the problem with out sourcing. He nailed both issues squarely.
Great knowledge of what really works, without all the sugar coating (read - buy me votes) but probably too austere of a government especially in a land of people who want everything handed to them, the next big thing being free health care for everyone. (say good bye to quality then)
Re:Whether or not... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a member of the religion of the Holy Free Market, but I'd rather have him in office (especially given that our current Congress could act as a break on his crazier ideas) than either Bush or Kerry. Hell, I live in Texas, so I might as well vote for Mickey Mouse because of the winner take all aspect of the Electoral College. I thik I could put up with the EC if only they'd split the vote.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A libertarian over 18 is a social misfit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hahaha haha aaa haha *snort* (Score:4, Interesting)
The "natural" value of the land that Ducks Unlimited purchased was limited because of government regulations. You probably couldn't have purchased that land to do oil drilling or pave it over for a parking lot or industrial complex. Thus Ducks Unlimited had an "unfair" advantage, because they could derive more legal value from the land than could the corporations.
Absent government regulations, as the libertarians propose, non-profit groups couldn't stand a chance in the bidding for most land.
Re:You changed my vote. (Score:4, Interesting)
Jedidiah.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
If the White House is the head of the country, then Congress must surely be the legs.
This is exactly what has frustrated me the most about my fellow countrymen. Its almost as if folks dont' quite understand that there are three branches of the government at work here; there's only so much a president can do without Congress' help.
If people want change, real, palpable, history-making change, they need to opt for a different kind of representation in Congress first. If the president (then) isn't inline with a reformed Congress, they face the reality of loosing that second term to someone who is.
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:5, Interesting)
If you still don't see what I'm talking about, get a map and look at the province of British Columbia, in Canada. Look at the size of those areas. In the north, Mount Edziza Provincial Park doesn't even have access roads - you have to walk in, or take a floatplane. And the walk takes 3 days. Who would own such a vast area? There aren't enough people here to buy it. It would be sold and carved up in an instant, a great tragedy were it to occur.
Overall, I'm happy that the libertarians will forever remain a fringe group. That's an unpopular opinion around here, but I think the "simple solutions for all problems!" approach is naive and scary.
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:2, Interesting)
In any case, I'm sure other countries would want to follow suit if it turns out US education actually gets better by privatizing it, so by all means go ahead.
Re:Government Failures... (Score:4, Interesting)
People were free to boycott products from companies that polluted, but of course, a single or a few individuals wouldn't make any difference at all. They would need to get organized. They would need a mechanism and an organization to get the word out.
Real change came about when the government did intervene, or rather, when individuals used government as a force mulitplier, as an organization to force corporations to behave more responsibly.
As for most of the superfund sites being government property: assuming this is true, it simply shows that nothing is a panacea, that no system works all the time or even most of the time. I certainly concede that about the current system. I could listen more to libertarians (or communists or anachists) if they could ever see the truth of this about their system.
Re:Definition of each Political Party (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll also point out that your statement to the effect that "That's corporations, no matter if 99% of the employees are saints." could apply equally well to governments. Except that the guys running governments have far more power than corporations. If you don't trust corporate power why would you trust government power?
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:4, Interesting)
If by here, you mean America, I strongly disagree. I consider the majority of my public education to be a process of self instruction, and if it wasn't for some small measure of self motivation I doubt I'd have taken much from it beyond some basic math and the ability to read and write. While I'm willing to accept that not all public schools were as bad as mine, I think the majority are. Mine was just a normal suburban high school, one no one would bat an eye at. Talking to other former suburbanites, most seem to have had the same experience. When the subject is below that economic class, things get worse than that already pretty bad state.
Once I got out of there and started traveling more, my outlook on public education became even more dour. If one's out of the area around a university, the actual grasp of 'any' subject is pretty dismal. I think a lot of people get their idea of their nations state of education just from the social groups they spend their time with. After being seperated from that, and spending time in towns better representing the nation as a whole, I really don't think 'anything' could make the current education system much worse. As far as I'm concerned, public school isn't even an option anymore if the goal is to actually educate a child. Aside from the earliest skills like reading and writing, it's already only a choice between private and home schooling as far as I'm concerned. The idea of every child getting a quality education is a wonderful one, but I don't think it's either the truth nor something which could become a reality any time soon.
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:3, Interesting)
It used to be that a small community would get together and fund what was essentially public education. This is still something that, under a totally privatized education, is still possible, but it would be up to the community to decide wether or not they want it, and how much they want to spend on it, and what should be taught... and that's how it should be... you have your choice, and isn't that what the slashdot crowd is all about?
Re:Hahaha haha aaa haha *snort* (Score:3, Interesting)
Nukular Nonchalance (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of assuming rational behavior, there are too many counter-examples to mention, but I'll list one that is dirtectly pertinent. The Atlantic Monthly featured a story about Pakistan -- I believe it was 9/2000 by Robert D. Kaplan, but I'm not certain (Atlantic archives are no longer viewable without a subscription). In the article, a high-ranking former member of the Pakistani military said that he felt it would be a good idea to nuke India. The writer incredulously asked whether he was aware of the consequences of a nuclear exchange between the two nations. He assured that even considering the fallout (literal and figurative), he thought it was a good idea. Mind you, this is not some illiterate on the street. This is a guy who knows exactly what would happen.
As to infallibility, although there was never an inadvertent launch as in "Fail Safe" nor a misconception leading to an exchange, we came perilously close. The Cuban Missile Crisis could have resulted in an exchange merely as a result of miscommunication. McNamara said there were other incidents where an unlucky series of events could have resulted in a nuclear exchange -- in other words, we got lucky.
Leaders of countries like Iran and North Korea know exactly what they are doing and why. But I don't credit those leaders with enough rationality to believe that they would not use nukes against enemies in a first strike, under some irrational calculation, such as the hatred Iran's leaders have for Israel.
Unfortunately, I don't think the US has the international standing to make any serious case against them as a result of (a) the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, and (b) our own programs to build new nukes. And no one else seems likely to take up the issue.
My sense is that nuclear weapons counter-proliferation is the most important national security issue we face. Even bio-weapons are probably less important, given that they are difficult to actually deploy. If an American city is nuked, our response to 9-11 will look like patty-cakes.
Re:Insanity and the Electoral College (Score:3, Interesting)
That argument is ridiculous. Even in direct elections the guy from Peoria still has a vote with the same value as the guy from New York.
Furthermore, even though New York has more people than Peoria, and will thus be pandered to more, there are still a lot more Peorias than there are New Yorks. Politicians would still have to address issues important to people in small towns and rural areas, even if they didn't spend much time in any one single small town.
I find it interesting that Badnarik finds popular vote more disenfranchising than our current system, where a State could have, for example, something like a 45%/43%/12% split (where the 12% represents all third party candidates put together), and thus 55% of the voters from that State are completely ignored.
And that's not to mention how disenfranchised voters already are in States with few electoral votes; and the urban vs. rural problem Badnarik describes already happens just as easily (if not more easily) on a State level than it would on a national level.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
While the situation for plaintiffs against auto emissions might seem hopeless under libertarian law, there is a partial way out. In a libertarian society, the roads would be privately owned. This means that the auto emissions would be emanating from the road of the road owner into the lungs or airspace of other citizens, so that the road owner would be liable for pollution damage to the surrounding inhabitants. Suing the road owner is much more feasible than suing each individual car owner for the minute amount of pollutants he might be responsible for. In order to protect himself from these suits, or even from possible injunctions, the road owner would then have the economic incentive to issue anti-pollution regulations for all cars that wish to ride on his road. Once again, as in other cases of the tragedy of the commons, private ownership of the resource can solve many externality problems.
Hilarious-- we should privatize all the roads and then individuals can sue the road owner (I love how there's only ONE road owner in this hypothetical situation) for letting air pollution travel from the roads to their private property. Or we could just pass the Clean Air Act of 1970 and similar laws.
I knew this guy who was a die-hard communist. You could ask him a question of the type "doesn't communism blatantly fail in situation X?" And he would have some answer like "well, if every country was communist, then there would be no war, and because of that Y would happen to prevent situation X" or something like that. Libertarians are the same way when it comes to problems like air pollution. They have obviously spent lots of time trying to figure out how their beloved, one-sentence ideology can solve all problems.
This part was also funny:
Suppose, for example, that A builds a building, sells it to B, and it promptly collapses. A should be liable for injuring B's person and property and the liability should be proven in court, which can then enforce the proper measures of restitution and punishment. But if the legislature has imposed building codes and inspections in the name of safety, innocent builders (that is, those whose buildings have not collapsed) are subjected to unnecessary and often costly rules, with no necessity by government to prove crime or damage. They have committed no tort or crime, but are subject to rules, often only distantly related to safety, in advance by tyrannical governmental bodies. Yet, a builder who meets administrative inspection and safety codes and then has a building of his collapse, is often let off the hook by the courts. After all, has he not obeyed all the safety rules of the government, and hasn't he thereby received the advance imprimatur of the authorities?
So I assume we should also get rid of drunk driving laws. After all, we don't want to infringe on the rights of those who can drive drunk safely! Who cares if it would cause X thousand more deaths every year, the right to drunk drive is important! Outlawing it would violate our lovely little ideology!
He's 100% right on the electoral college. (Score:2, Interesting)
The electoral college actually works for the disenfranchised, rather than against it. The sparse, rural states tend to have lower per capita incomes than those states which are "under-represented".
Large urban coastal states still dominate the American system, as they would in any republic, they simply dominate less because of the electoral college.
Re:Libertarianism's Failures... (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The strongest/most vicious exact control over their own particular regions.
2. The controlers extort money from the weaker/less connected individuals in their region of control as a protection racket.
3. Frequent skirmishes between the different groups.
4. Since the controling group is already stealing money from the others that live in the contested regions they might as well controle other aspects of their lives.
In other words, we end up exactly where we are now. With that being the worst case, why not give it a shot?
Dok
Re:Related maybe interesting link (Score:4, Interesting)
The U.S. school system sucks, to put it mildly. People argue over the reasons, but few argue with that statement. If 90% of kids get a basic education by the 12th grade under Badnarik, that would be phenomenally better than the current system, in my opinion.
The current system isn't all that equal anyway. Just consider the quality of the teacher pool in some areas. In some areas the Dads make a lot of money and the Moms don't have to work, so the Moms help out A LOT with the educational process, both by helping their own kids and volunteering at school.
I don't think it's the governments responsibility to equalize anything. It's an economically ruinous task for one, and often at odds with liberty, which I value very highly. Some people get the short end of the stick, and that will always be true. Some people will be born poor, some people born disabled in some way (like me), some people born ugly, and all of those people are at a disadvantage, but not all of those things can be corrected, nor should the government attempt to correct the inequities by taking away the liberties of other people.
Re:Definition of each Political Party (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason that these things cost less is that corporations are able to externalize the costs via the government. Not surprisingly, the worst environmental abuses have been perpetrated by private entities on public land (they don't own it, so why should they care what happens to it).
That's why the government exists to act as a restraining influence on corporations.
And a fine job it's been doing. Look, government doesn't restrain corporate power, it creates corporate power. The original corporations were created specifically (by governments) to take on ventures deemed "too risky" for individual investors, or even governments. That's less true today, but the fact remains that corporations are an extension of the government, not an alternative to it.
Standard Oil. Ma Bell. Microsoft.
Ma Bell: a monopoly created by government regulation. Microsoft: apparently going the way of that last great "monopolist" of the computing industry, IBM. Standard Oil: the poster-child for monopolists - except that government intervention (i.e. the Sherman anti-trust breakup) occurred well after SO's market share had begun to decline in the face of more efficient competitors.
The market forces themselves are the problem. They TEND toward monopolies.
Stating a fallacy over and over again won't make it true. Show me an example of real monopoly that has harmed consumers, and has stayed in existence without the help of the government, and I might believe you.
That is the 'have you stopped beating your wife' question. It implies that less legal framework would make companies less abusive.
No, it implies that your assumption that governments would restrain the power of corporations has apparently led to a result you didn't want. Perhaps you should cehck your assumptions. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.
Why don't people do exactly that to misbehaving corporations already? What's stopping them?
Good question. Maybe because they expect that mythical chimera called "government" to solve all their problems. And you have ignored my second point: there have been plenty of cases of people deciding they didn't like the goods or services available to them and choosing to set up their own companies to do better or cheaper.
Bullshit. Monopolies are the result of market forces.
Plese read what I said again: pure monopolies are the result of government intervention. Microsoft, much as I dislike them does not have a pure monopoly, they have, as you mentioned an "effective" monopoly. But effective monopolies only last so long (as IBM discovered) because ebtter competitors will arise - if the government lets them.
The mandate of a government (one of them) is to act as a safeguard against runaway market effects like cutting down all the trees and filling the air with pollution.
Ah. Which would explain why all of the worst clear-felling and pollution takes place on government land.
Jesus, what's with you people? If I bash socialism I must be a free market libertarian nutball. If I bash libertarianism I must be a commie bastard. In fact I'm just a guy in the middle that recognizes that too much of anything, privitization or nationalization, is deadly to an economy.
Hey, you were the one who started taking things to "logical extremes". I never claimed you were a socialist, I was trying to point out that your argument about logical extremes was silly.
Re:Iraq *wasn't* a threat to the United States (Score:3, Interesting)
And should we also forget that Stalin was an ally of the United States during WWII? The reason the United states helped Saddam come to power weighs heavily in the fact that the United States had two issues. One the US was very scared of what was happening in the region with Khomeini at the helm in Teheran. Two the US was in the midst of the Cold War and was afraid of the Soviets gaining control over the oil in the Gulf.
That does not excuse the fact that we were not watching Saddam closely enough to avert the tragities that came as a result.
And before you go quoting the lie that Saddam had ties to Al Queda you should Google for the fact that almost all of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on September 11th were Saudi.I don't have to google for that info, I know it, and while a majority of the hijackers where Saudi not all of them where. There was an Egyptian, a Lebanese, and two from United Arab Emirates, you google it. The tragity of 9/11 wasn't because of Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or the United Arab Emirates, it was a direct result of mentially unstable individuals that thought their chances with virgins where more important than thousands of innocent people. Al Queda seems to be a haven for individuals like that. They aren't fighting for independance, or to free themselves of oppression or slavery, the majority of them fight because they are told that it is a war between people who are like them against people that are against them.
Of course, people like you like to ignore the fact that governments in North Korea, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia treat their citizens just as bad if not worse than Saddam did his, yet we're not invading those countries
No I am not ignoring the fact that the United States isn't invading those contries. Let take the first one on the list, North Korea. Last time I heard on the news the United States still was maning the line drawn in the sand by the U.N. You want to know why the U.S. hasn't just stepped over the line? It's only approx 50 miles from Seoul, and the North Korea's side of the line is packed full of artillary. We even think of crossing that line into North Korea and Seoul is gone (btw according to this article [guardian.co.uk] it's looking like that may not be an issue later. Now lets take the next two, China and Cuba both of those countries have shown to react very nicely to the diplomatic channels. Iraq was talked to for lets see about what 10 years and each time they said sure sure no problem then reniged, again and again, and again and again resolutions were passed in the U.N. saying follow these rules or else, and after a decade of saying or else the U.S. used the authority given to it by one of those previous or else resolutions to give an or else. Now as for the last country you list the Saudi's I'm afraid I would not weep if the Saudi govenment where to suddenly collapsed and a democratic one sprang up over night. I have never ignored the their basic lack of decency to anyone not of the royal family (notice I do distinish the difference between the govenment and the people as I had said in the parent of your post I met and made friends with people of many nationalities, and yes Saudi is one of them) but unless you've have proof that Saudi's routinely tourture it's people (and not that I've heard or seen, I've even looked here here [hrw.org] or you have heard the attrocities first hand from an Iraqi don't compare the two.
Why we're invading a weak, irrelevant, oil rich country like Iraq instead of any of those others is left as an exercise for the reader.weak??? That's a laugh, guess the fact that during the years of U.N. watching them oh so closely and making sure all the oil-for-food proceeds went to humantarian causes, and some how Saddam was able rebuild his miltary to what it was before the Gulf war doesn't bother you.
Re:Of course (Score:2, Interesting)
If things work out in November, Contra Costa County will elect a majority of Libertarian candidates to the Mount Diablo HealthCare District, whose stated goal is to Shut 'Em Down [emdown.com] . The MDHD was created to run a county hospital, but they did such a lousy job that the hospital went bankrupt, and was saved only because a for-profit hospital corporation purchased it. For the past eight or so years, the Mt. Diablo Healthcare District has really served no purpose at all, except to elect and re-elect five board members who meet twice a month and draw a salary by trying to figure out how to spend their $800,000/year budget without having a hospital to run. Two Grand Jury investigations have concluded that the healthcare district should be dissolved, but the board members refuse to abolish themselves. That's why the three Libertarians decided to run for the open seats so that they can do what the sitting board refuses to do. Their first action upon being elected is going to be to start the process of amending the county charter to eliminate the healthcare district and save the taxpayers all that money.