Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government

Libertarian Candidate Michael Badnarik Interview 188

Posted by michael
from the bad-to-the-bone dept.
Lowtekium writes "On November 2nd many young adult Americans will go to the polls to vote for their next President, but very few of them know of the Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik. JIVE Magazine had the chance to interview Mr. Badnarik. He gives his thoughts on various topics that affect young adults such educational aid and funding for college students, video game violence, and even music and entertainment censorship."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libertarian Candidate Michael Badnarik Interview

Comments Filter:
  • by kajoob (62237) on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:14PM (#10666943)
    I stopped as soon as I read this...


    Democrats and Republicans are planning to restore the draft with House Resolution 162 in the House of Representatives


    Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will bring back the draft. In fact, that bill was killed weeks ago. The Republicans from the Prez on down have said there will be no draft, and even though the Democrats sponsored the draft bill in the House, they weren't really serious about it - it was just used as a scare tactic / wedge issue.

    So either Badnarick is either ignorant, or just thinks young people are so stupid that you can just scare them into voting for you. MTV does the same thing with Rock the Vote. Check it out - as we've seen before, neither party is bringing back the draft but MTV still hosts this page [rockthevote.com].

    Perhaps if Badnarick starts treating the "Dot Net" age group like the intelligent, informed people that we are instead of all the MTV-esque scare-mongering, maybe we might vote for him.

    • by bevo14 (820443)
      If the Rebulicans and Democrats have no intention of having a draft, then why don't they get rid of Selective Service Department? It might just save us taxpayers some money for a change.
    • Me too. I really really really want to like 3rd party candidates, especially a guy that's for civil liberties, but when he opens his interview with such an obvious/condescending/manipulative lie, it's not possible.
      • with such an obvious/condescending/manipulative lie, it's not possible.

        HR163 was a clay pidgeon. The only reason it was sent up was so it could be shot down, and give everybody an election-year warm fuzzy. Next year (after the election) is a whole new ball game. So a condescending manipulative lie is in the eye of the beholder.

        That said, nobody in the military wants the draft either. The reason that the all-volunteer armed forces are the most effective in the world is that every member joined up know
    • by KilobyteKnight (91023) <bjm&midsouth,rr,com> on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:59PM (#10667429) Homepage

      Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will bring back the draft. In fact, that bill was killed weeks ago.
      ---[cut]---
      So either Badnarick is either ignorant, or just thinks young people are so stupid that you can just scare them into voting for you

      Or the interview was done while the bill was still alive.

      The Democrats and Republicans constantly say one thing and do another. The draft died this time. After the election the political pressures will be different.
      • Remember that the House of Representatives has basically two states:
        *Financing reelection
        *Running for reelection.

        Do you think the House wants a housecleaning?
    • by slithytove (73811) on Friday October 29, 2004 @05:13PM (#10667563) Homepage
      You're right that the bill was not serious. On the other hand, how do you explain this [thememoryhole.org]
    • Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will bring back the draft. In fact, that bill was killed weeks ago.

      Agreed. The public wouldn't stand for it. Maybe for a war with really broad popular support, but not for a war like Iraq where the rationale is unclear and evolves constantly (WMD, terrorist ties, Saddam was a bad guy... etc. etc.) and not for a bogged-down guerilla war with no clear end in sight.

      There's also the problem of who to draft. Focusing unfairly on minorities might meet more resistance t

  • Legal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dasheiff (261577) on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:16PM (#10666956) Homepage
    FTA
    Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.

    Though I understand that it's suppose to be civil disobeadence, I'm not sure how they can Legeally be stoped from serving papers. I guess the idea is that they were trying to do it during the debate itself for the most coverage, but what am I missing here?
    • Re:Legal? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by slithytove (73811)
      They can't legally avoid being served indefinitely, but its pretty common to avoid it while you can. Also, MB did attempt to serve them at ASU as a sort of publicity stunt (who can blame him when the media ignores him even when he's arrested?).

      They were served in DC, and there was a hearing about the injunction. The judge denied it, saying that the LP didn't provide enough time, but that they could continue the suit to seek damages. The fact that the injunction was filed for the DAY AFTER the debate at
    • Re:Legal? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sevinkey (448480)
      IF you're serving papers to the CPD, the CPD can do whatever it wants, since it's a private company. If the CPD says "get off my lawn", and you don't, you're trespassing.

      Why are the presidential debates ran by a private company? How could they republicans and democrats put up with that? Because they own it jointly.
  • From TFA: Democrats and Republicans are planning to restore the draft with House Resolution 162 in the House of Representatives.

    This bill was killed weeks ago. I think that only 1 representative voted for it. Even the sponsor (Rangel) voted against it.

    There were some other interesting comments in the article about staffing up Selective Service, and the "back-door" draft of not letting people leave the military.

    • It wasn't a bill to reinstate the draft. It was a bill to make it include females and cut out the college exemptions.

      Also, what politician is going to support something unpopular right before an election.
      • Makes sense to me. Women are equal these days (something I agree with, btw), so they ought to be equal in responsibility as well.
      • I thought it was mandatory civil service for all Americans regardless of if we were at war. This doesn't necessarily mean joining the army. The official title of the bill was:
        "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

    • SSS was being restaffed because the draft board members who signed up in the early 80s were being term limited (in many cases, I think the board seats were actually vacant), and if they send a report to Congress saying they're not ready for a draft, they get shut down.
  • Word up (Score:5, Interesting)

    by finkployd (12902) on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:22PM (#10667029) Homepage
    "If you vote for the lesser of two evils and your candidate wins, you still get evil. The only wasted vote is when you vote for a candidate that you don't respect."

    Very true. I know there are those who will say "that is stupid, a vote for (3rd party) is just a vote for (candidate I don't like) and this election is the most important ever, we have to make sure (candidate I don't like) does not win"

    I say bull. This election is possibly the LEAST important ever. Bush and Kerry are so similar it is sickening. Oh sure what they SAY is different but if you think for a second that Kerry is going to (end the war/roll back tax cuts/improve civil liberties/etc) you are either completely ignorant of what he has said and done in the past, or (worse) you think his sudden change in positions was legit and had nothing to do with struggling to find ways to differentiate himself from Bush.

    So vote for who you really want to win, because either Bush or Kerry are going to win anyway and they will both equally suck.
    • So vote for who you really want to win, because either Bush or Kerry are going to win anyway and they will both equally suck.

      See, that's where this reasoning falls down for me- I don't think they'll EQUALLY suck. I think Kerry's obvious INTELLIGENCE and flip flopping HYPOCRISY means more government gridlock and fewer stupid stuff sneaking by. Which ends up a net plus for America.

      Having said that- if you're not in a swing state, if EITHER Bush or Kerry is leading your state by more than 10%, we need you
      • Re:Word up (Score:3, Interesting)

        by stinerman (812158)
        I don't think Bush and Kerry equally suck, either. I just think that Kerry sucks too much to get my vote.

        Badnarik it is (Nader isn't on in Ohio and Cobb is an asshat).
      • Re:Word up (Score:3, Insightful)

        by finkployd (12902)
        Frankly this is the only halfway decent reason for voting for either of these two I have heard.

        But think about it...The best solution is to force gridlock so that all those we elected are the most powerless to do anything? That is what we consider best for the USA, to put people in power for the purpose of blocking those others we have put into power?

        Is that not he saddest thing ever, that THIS is what we aspire to? If it were not real it would be too funny and outlandish to pass as fiction.

        I refuse to p
        • Honestly, if you look at the way the Founding Fathers set up the government, that's what they wanted.

          "That government which governs best, governs least" -- Thomas Jefferson.
      1. I say bull. This election is possibly the LEAST important ever. Bush and Kerry are so similar it is sickening.

      I had a long response and decided to drop it.

      Fans and foes of President G.W. Bush alike see stark differences in forign policy as well as many domestic issues between Predident G.W. Bush and his father President Bush let alone G.W. and Kerry.

      Compare how President Bush I handled war with Iraq vs. President Bush II. I'm surprised they are related!

    • Bush and Kerry both have many serious problems, many of them the same problems -- but if you actually believe that they are identical, that which of them wins will not have a profound effect on the world -- then you are either living in a cave, or are blinded by ideology.

      If nothing else, Kerry believes in making decisions based on discernable reality, and Bush believes that we are an empire that can create its own reality, because we're armed to the teeth and on a mission from God. That difference alone i
      • but if you actually believe that they are identical, that which of them wins will not have a profound effect on the world -- then you are either living in a cave, or are blinded by ideology.


        And you are blinded by rhetoric. Sure there are differences. They each say they will do things very differently. In their actions though that are quite similar. A profound effect on the world? What do you think Kerry is going to do differently? Until running for the Presidency he practically supported Bush in every cr
        • And you are blinded by rhetoric.

          No, I'm basing my opinion on my observations of their behavior.

          Kerry is cutting an electable middle ground in his rhetoric -- that is what politicians do. But based on how he has voted in the past, and what he has said when he wasn't under the limelight, I honestly believe that, had he been president for the last four years:
          • We would not have invaded Iraq. (His views on war, while much too hawkish for my taste, are at least practical and reality-based.)
          • The government wo
          • You may believe that is what would happen if Kerry were president, but it is all just speculation, as is my belief. What it boils down to with Kerry is the same for me as Bush, I don't like his politics. The only difference between us is that I do not believe it is so important to get Bush out of office that I would want someone like Kerry in it. Don't get me wrong, I want Bush out of office, just not at any cost.

            I don't buy that Bush believes he is some messenger of God (and a nytimes article is not going
            • I don't buy that Bush believes he is some messenger of God (and a nytimes article is not going to convince me).

              In that respect, then, you are like him: facts don't affect your beliefs. Fair enough. I think you should read the article before you dismiss it.

              It amazes me how much everyone rationalizes the rampant corruption and lack of integrity of those they support just because it is so important to beat the "other guy". ... This will only change when a critical mass decides to stop going "I really dis
  • He looks like he's struggling to stay upright in that sofa thing.

    Anyway, I think he presented himself better in the /. interview. Here he just repeats over and over the most basic concepts of Libertarianism. Which is mildly compelling, but the specifics are way more interesting.

    And if there was ever a massive sea change in American politics that made the Libertarian Party suddenly have a viable shot at the presidency, Badnarik is the Libertarian that I would want. Not because I like or dislike Libertarian
    • Here he just repeats over and over the most basic concepts of Libertarianism.

      "I get to do whatever the fuck I want and you don't get to say anything about it. Oh, except if someone threatens me. Then you have to defend me to death."

      On a related note, I propose that we allow anyone to own whatever weaponry they please. To compensate, they will be completely excluded from police and military protection.
      • Great. I choose a nuke. Give me all your money, or I'll use it.

        The world doesn't work that way, unfortunately. You can't remove youself from society. Exactly how do you remove police/military protection anyway? Even if someone never cals the police, they still deter crime against him by arresting criminals. The fact the US has a military stops anyone from invading him. The libertarian idea of independance doesn't exist, in truth it never has.
        • You miss the point. The other guy is still protected.

          If someone breaks in your house, kidnaps your kid, etc., you're on your own.

          If you try to rob someone, the police will protect that person.
          • No, you miss the point. A lot of crime is prevented just because the police exist at all. People don't become muggers because the risk of being arrested is there. He'll be recieving police protection because the police exist for other people. There's no way to remove that protection from him. No man is an island, there is no way to totally withdraw from society. Nor would you truely find it desirable to do so if you could.
  • Arrr.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by a whoabot (706122) on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:34PM (#10667142)
    "We just expect you to handle all the consequences of your decision. So everything Libertarians espouse is basically individual rights and personal responsibility."

    But that is the whole sticking point.

    The conceptions of what one should be a responsible for or have the right to do is are so varied that to simply say that that is what you espouse is meaningless.

    As Badnarik asks, "Why would you let the government tell you what to do?" This is not a reasonable argument against other parties: Libertarians still tell you what to do. They say you have to respect what Badnarik calls "divine rights." No one would agree with Badnarik's exact intepretation of "divine rights" and many would not agree with anything significantly close to it.

    It seems anarchists outdue the libertarians with regards to personal liberty: they say the government shouldn't tell you what to do at all. Libertarians say that the government should tell you to do some things. Marxist-Leninists says that the government should tell you to do other things. Libertarians have just picked one of many positions of the government telling you what to do. And they don't offer any definitive reasons that trump any other political parties' reasons for choosing their particular ideological position. They're saying: "everyone must have these rights simply because it's natural/divine." I don't see any evidence whatsoever that their conceptions of rights and responsibilities are natural. You can say they're "nice" or "moral", but to claim their natural is to claim that the universe is bound to your ideals. Perhaps it is, but I don't see the evidence.

    Does anyone more familiar with Libertarian thought have more evidence? I'm glad to dicuss this and think about it moreso.

    • Perhaps I'm off-base here, but I believe when he talks about our rights he's referring to what's written in the Constitution. The appeal of Libertarianism is that it's essentially getting back to our roots, or getting back on track re: the gov't that the Founding Fathers wrote. That appears to me to be Badnarik's, if not the whole LP's platform. All the stuff about individual freedom &c. stems from the return to constitutional government. Also, the increased power of the states (not covered in this
      • States rights are far more in danger, have been curtailed far more, and are far more important in keeping the Constitution alive, than individual rights.

        You can be an anti-abortionist libertarian, for example--the Constitution doesn't address murder; it's left up to the states. You can be Libertarian that wants to set up a Marxist utopia in your home town. It's all about devolution of powers to the lowest possible level of government.

        As far as the official party is concerned, I think they're far too con

    • I heard Mr. Badnarik speak at length and in person. As a sort of Athiest/Techno-Pagan, I am particularly sensitive to talk of God or the "divine", especially by politicians. I do not recall hearing any religious words out of Michael, except when he was talking about the seperation of church and state (which his is firmly in favor of). He even refused to tell us what his own religious affiliation is.

      Michael Badnarik's belief in what our unalienable rights are, is derived directly from the constitution.
    • It's simple (Score:3, Informative)

      by scotay (195240)
      The constitution limits the areas where the federal government gets to tell us what to do to those specifically enumerated. All the other areas are left to the state or local governments, or to the people themselves. If we want to grant further federal rights to tell us what to do, we go through the rather laborious process of amending the constitution. It's hardly anarchist or even complicated. It's just confusing because our well meaning, progressive notions bulldozed through those complications by popula
    • As Badnarik asks, "Why would you let the government tell you what to do?" This is not a reasonable argument against other parties: Libertarians still tell you what to do.

      I would rather say, they still tell you what not to do, but I think I understand your point.

      It seems anarchists outdue the libertarians with regards to personal liberty:

      I agree that it seems this way as well, but I'll try to offer a few of my ideas on this (please note that I'm new to studying Libertarians as a party, but the ideas ar
      • Now we're talking.

        So, Libertarians agree with the anarchists: total personal liberity is an ideal. But, the Libertarians don't take the governmental acualisation of this imperative as a finality. They import some utilitarianism. My objection to this formulation of Libertarianism is that it has merely moved the problem I raised(and others as I've read in this story dicussion) of "why are these/(which) liberties (are) an imperative for the government to protect?" to "what laws will maximise well-being for
        • This is actually interesting - I don't think I've seen a real discussion of this sort of thing in ages.

          Couple of points:

          So, Libertarians agree with the anarchists: total personal liberity is an ideal. But, the Libertarians don't take the governmental acualisation of this imperative as a finality.

          Couple of things, the first of which is annoying. There are _l_ibertarians and _L_ibertarians. The Libertarian Party does not represent everyone who calls themselves libertarians, which stands in contrast to

        • But, the Libertarians [...] import some utilitarianism. (I hope this edit doesn't too badly mischaracterize what you said.)

          Importing utilitarianism is one interesting way to look at it. But yes, anarchists and libertarians tend to agree that maximizing personal liberty is an ideal. One way to look at it might be that anarchists want to maximize personal liberty as it applies to any one person. Libertarians want to maximize it as it averages out over everyone. Since someone who is dead or coerced doesn
    • And they don't offer any definitive reasons that trump any other political parties' reasons for choosing their particular ideological position.

      If you're looking for a well reasoned philosophical argument for libertarianism (small "l"), you should really just google it, or perhaps start with Libertarianism: a Primer, by Boaz. Basically, it comes down to a distillation of classic liberalism (which should not to be confused with recent U.S. redefinitions of the word) - a human owns itself, the right to pro

    • Libertarians differ most from other political parties in the US in their interpretation of the constitution. The libertarian party could be said to follow most the idea of "original intent".

      For example, when the US constitution's second amendment was written (the right to bear arms), it was intended to allow any citizen of the US to own a gun for personal and national defense. As long as that amendment is in the constitution, a libertarian will argue that the government has no right to issue permits, the
  • by Dr Kool, PhD (173800) on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:39PM (#10667191) Homepage Journal
    Read the interview, he calls college grants for low-income student "goverment-sponsored theft".

    Without this "goverment-sponsored theft", I wouldn't be making $70K right now and contributing $20K per year to Uncle Sam... I might even be on welfare...
    • Read the interview, he calls college grants for low-income student "goverment-sponsored theft".

      Well, you know what? It may not fit the definition of theft that's codified into laws, but it comes kinda close to the idea most people have. (I'll overlook the removal of the quote from the context, because I don't think it matters too much in this instance.)

      I'm not sure how I feel about federally funded student aid, but I know I have seen many, many students that probably wouldn't have been able to go to c
      • You're just so wrong I bet you can't even look right.

        Bank robbery? Try a loan. The government is 'borrowing' money to you with the expectation that you will 'pay them back' after you graduate. They give you $40000 and you give them $10000 a year for fourty years. I'd say the terms are pretty good, wouldn't you?

        I do agree, though, that abuse of the system is a problem. I, therefore, propose that the aid be made in form of a loan. If the student graduates within a given time limit (exclude illness etc.), th
        • If you'll reread what I wrote (fat chance, I know...) you'll see that I was making 2 distinct points. The first had to do with financial aid directly, and I did mention that it was a loan, although not at rats as beneficial to the loaner as you imply.

          The second point was that even though good can come of a bad deed, that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad deed. You know, I even separated the points with italics from the parent post, but I'll reiterate - there were two points made.
          • Your premise is incorrect. A Robin Hood-bank robbery is in no way analogous to government education grants. Firstly, the money is given voluntarily and secondly, the money is returned--with interest--to the same people it was originally gotten from.

            Yes, I saw you had two 'points'. The problem is that neither was either correct or relevant.
        • Bank robbery? Try a loan. The government is 'borrowing' money to you with the expectation that you will 'pay them back' after you graduate. They give you $40000 and you give them $10000 a year for fourty years. I'd say the terms are pretty good, wouldn't you?

          And where do you think the government gets the money to "borrow" to them? And when do the people who were forced to make this "loan" get their money back?

          I don't recollect ever getting any of the money I "loaned" out back.
          • Don't recollect getting any of the money back.

            Did you go to school? Do you drive on a road? Does the police patrol your block? Does the military defend your homeland?

            The idea is that an unskilled worker will make, what, $20,000 a year, a college-educated one probably around $45,000-$75,000. All moral issues aside, the government views the increased tax revenue as a fair trade.
            • Did you go to school? Do you drive on a road? Does the police patrol your block? Does the military defend your homeland?

              Those are services I derive a direct benefit from, and if I didn't pay government for them, I'd still have to pay somebody else to provide (most of) them.

              What we're talking about here is, the government is taking my money to spend for somebody else's benefit. I derive no benefit from having spent the money for the parent poster's having received an education and holding down a $70k job.
              • Those are services I derive a direct benefit from, and if I didn't pay government for them, I'd still have to pay somebody else to provide (most of) them.

                But you don't have to pay anyone else now, do you?

                What we're talking about here is, the government is taking my money to spend for somebody else's benefit. I derive no benefit from having spent the money for the parent poster's having received an education and holding down a $70k job.

                This is basic economics. It's better for you to live in a country in

                • But you don't have to pay anyone else now, do you?

                  What difference does that make? Whether I pay a private party for them or I pay through taxes, I still pay for them.

                  This is basic economics. It's better for you to live in a country in which other people earn well, too.

                  I understand that. But I fail to see why other people earning well is contingent on my being forced to fund their education. Let me point out, I earn considerably more than our friend who had his education funded by taxpayers like me, an

    • If you're making $70K/year you are probably one of the Slashdot elite. Don't expect too many sympathies from the proles.
    • by funk_doc (738861) on Friday October 29, 2004 @07:35PM (#10668778) Homepage
      It's unfortunate that you think that if the government didn't educate you, you would be stupid and poor. Education in a free market not only would exist, but it would be more efficent and cheaper.
      What you said would be like someone under Soviet Russia thanking the government for bread, because without the government providing bread, there would be no bread at all.

      I guess your government (AKA public) schools didn't teach you to think for yourself.
      • So you're saying England is stupid for providing free university? Most of Europe understands the need for free, govt sponsored education. This American system of higher education is stupid. The smart should be educated, not the rich. The rich already have money - they don't need to be educated as much as the poor do.
    • Without this "goverment-sponsored theft", I wouldn't be making $70K right now and contributing $20K per year to Uncle Sam... I might even be on welfare...

      That's fine for you and Uncle Sam. However, as one of the people who was forced to pay taxes to provide that education that allows you to make $70k a year, I'd like to know when I'm going to get my chunk of that $20k a year back for my "investment"?
  • by Lendrick (314723) on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:40PM (#10667199) Homepage Journal
    But when you're 40 years old and you finally get your office job and you're wearing a suit and tie to work, all of a sudden you realize the government is taking 35 percent of the money that you've worked so hard for and giving it to people who do nothing but sit on the couch, watch TV, and procreate.

    What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.

    It's sad that the term "Big Government" carries such negative connotations. It's mostly something that Republicans (ironically) invoke to attack Democrats.

    When railing on big government, it's important to consider the fact that big government was what got us out of the Great Depression, and small government was what got us into it. Unchecked capitalism leads to monopolies, which lead to all of the wealth being concentrated in a few hands, which leads to (eventual) economic collapse. You can see it happening right now. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, etc.

    The solution isn't a total conversion to communism or socialism (both of which have repeatedly been shown to cause economic stagnation), but rather to put a system in place that redistributes wealth at about the same rate that the wealthy can hoard it. That's where taxes and social programs come in.

    Unfortunately, people will always take advantage of the system. Capitalism, even controlled capitalism, provides an incentive for people not to do this. What's important to remember is that the people who are taking advantage are the exception and not the rule. So while some of your tax money is wasted on welfare for layabouts and bottom-feeders, it's also going to a lot of people who genuinely need it and deserve the help.

    One last note: If you have to vote for lower taxes, you should vote for Badnarik over Bush, as someone will eventually have to pay for Bush's out-of-control spending. Kerry in 2004!
    • When railing on big government, it's important to consider the fact that big government was what got us out of the Great Depression...

      That is absolute codswallop. Big Government is what got us into and kept us in the Great Depression, and War is what got us out.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Seem to teach a history biased in favor of big government.
    • Its obviously difficult to predict how the free market and/or government regulation will affect any given industry. You have a good point that there are historical examples of very damaging monopolies in our history (before the era of "big government"). Personally, I think that only industries which include a lot of expensive infrastructure have any great potential of monopolistic abuse. On the other hand, government regulation usually amounts to GRANTING a monopoly and requiring some sort of compliance
      • Actually, the natural state of a market is monopoly. The end goal of any business is "market power"- the ability to set prices, instead of letting supply and demand set them for you. This is only attainable via monopoly/oligopoly. The reason this is desirable by the producer is because it increases profits. The reason it is the end result is because of economies of scale and barriers to entry.

        Economies of scale basicly means that as you produce more of something, the cost to produce a little bit more y

    • The solution isn't a total conversion to communism or socialism...

      What is often missed with meritocracy-based economic theories is the fact that machines are replacing humans. Not just robots in factories, software and computers are deplacing thinking jobs.

      The "baby-boomers" basically structured American society as it exists today. Why do big companies need 25 vice-presidents? It's mutual ego-building.

      The American economic system has gravitated towards the boomers (ironically not those that fought
    • What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.

      Whose fault is it that they have a family to feed, but lack the skills to generate sufficient income?

      It seems to me, that you have no business procreating if you can't support your progeny. But once you do procreate, it is your responsibility to care for them, regardless of how much personal effort that requires.

      Freedom is always accompanied by Responsibility. You can't have one with

      • In the society you just desribed, you naturally end up with a few people who are born with more money and then do everything they can to stay in power. That isn't survival of the fittest. In fact, it's been shown time and time again that an incompetent moron with money and friends can get a lot farther than a smart, "fit" individual who had to start at ground zero. Survivial of the Fittest works in nature because nature doesn't have nepotism.
        • First, I wish to laud you for your intelligent retort. I half expected a flame without substance.

          But, nowhere in my post did I say that compassion for the less fortunate has no place. I just don't think government should take on the role of Robin Hood.

          In fact, I commit to you today that, should I ever become a billionaire, I will use my fortune to improve the education of the proletariat sheople. :) <== very big grin

          I think a pure, hard-assed econo-evolutionist (which I am not!) would counter that s
      • And if you can't? We should instead let the children suffer, and perpetuate the cycle since its unlikely they'll have the education ro skills to move up in the wrld? Yeah, that a great idea.

        You want people to take responsibility? Start with yourself. You are a member of society. As a member of society, you have a responsibility to help your fellow man. That means giving money and time to those in need. You dont' like it? Too bad- its your responsibility as a human being.
        • I never said compassion has no place in society. And as I also pledged to Lendrick, I pledge to you: should I ever become a billionaire, I will use my wealth to help the less fortunate //help themselves// through education.

          What I object to most are those that someone else here described as "layabouts and bottom-feeders". I also think that most people who become dependent on welfare find it to be a comfortable local-minima, and then make no effort to remove themselves from the nipple of the public dole.
    • OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. These aren't meant to be complete rebuttals or anything, but points to consider.

      What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.

      Obviously, I don't think anyone working sixty hours a week is too lazy, but who told them they were entitled to not working any more when they decided to obtain more dependants? Did they neglect to count of the fact that 1) prices (recently) go up and 2) more peo
    • Your argument has a fallacy in it--the aquisition of mass wealth is required to then feed the masses, in which case, you either exterminate the motives for aquiring wealth altogether, or you curtail it by making it harder to get wealthy. Hence companies move overseas, hence the people you were trying to be a champion for are screwed.

      Those greedy corporations that hire people to work 60 hours a week at minimum wage provide more jobs than any liberal flapping his jaw about the injustices of the system ever

  • by Dimwit (36756) * on Friday October 29, 2004 @04:44PM (#10667251)
    I'm pretty much a democratic socialist. While Badnarik gave compelling arguments in this interview - for example: "How do I pay for my granma's medication?" "Do you have money?" "Yes, but what about the guy with the SUV who has more money than he knows what to do with?" "Well, would you hold him at gunpoint to take the money?" "No!" "But you want the government to..."

    That's all well and good, and I can see the point behind it. But then there is the tragedy of the commons. For example, if there is a river that runs through my property, I don't have the right to dam it up and deny people downstream the use of that river, because that river is a common, shared resource.

    Look at copyright: Copyright is (supposed to) expire, because there is no such thing as an idea in a vacuum. The idea came from the combined experiences and environment provided by society. Giving up exclusive control of a creation after a certain amount of time is how we pay back society.

    Well, Grandma raised a good mother who raised a good daughter, who then went to college to get a better job. She is therefore contributing more to society, possibly creating more jobs, building a better economy, providing living history. Her contributions to society are immeasurable, even if they're not directly monetary.

    The problem with Libertarianism is that it assumes we all exist in a vacuum. "It's my money, and society has no right to it unless I give it." If that's your philosophy, then you have no rights to the benefit of society. Note that I said society, not government.
    • Yes, well, there are many different kinds of market failure [wikipedia.org], all of which libertarians' only response is to shake their fists and say "Impossible!"

      There is another candidate I have in mind who thinks that if the facts don't fit the theory, then the facts must be wrong. I don't plan on voting for him, either.
    • There is a difference between the philosophy of libertariansism and the reality of it. I am a Lib, but I do NOT think that the philosophy will work 100% in the real world. The point that most people miss AND the "purist" Libs miss is that while the constitution limits the power of the fed, that states are not so limited. Thus you could still have state owned roads, schools etc.

      With the Libs in power on the federal level, I think you would see a great variation in towns cities etc. I.E. some green/socialist
    • That's all well and good, and I can see the point behind it. But then there is the tragedy of the commons. For example, if there is a river that runs through my property, I don't have the right to dam it up and deny people downstream the use of that river, because that river is a common, shared resource.

      You're missing the distinction - if I dam a river that is partly on my property and partly on your property, I've used my property such that I've damaged your property. In other words, I've deprived you of
  • He seems pretty confident that the draft is going to be reinstated no matter what. While I wont vote for bush he did say flat out that there wont be a draft as long as he is president. And despite him being incredibly stupid, he hasn't made any flat out blatant open lies. All of his lies are slippery with qualifications and such. And the people that write what he says are very careful. Also, it would take congress to have a draft and they voted almost unanimously against it just a short time ago. Obviously
    • So what if he lies? He's done so, and just as brazenly, before. Despite it, 50 million people are still going to vote for Bush.

      Bush has said there will never be a draft. Oh, fantastic. So why all the orders to Selective Service offices to be ready for ... something. For that matter, if a draft anytime in the forseeable future is merely the product of a deranged imagination, why is the Selective Service still here? Why did the No Child Left Behind Act include stuff for requiring public schools to give
  • I live in Texas, where the GOP dominates. So instead of voting for Kerry (or the Green Party, my real favorite) I just voted in early voting for Badnarik, even though I am no longer a Libertarian. But since the Libertarian platform is essentially a rightwing platform (essentially advocating zero taxation), if the Libertarian party gets more popular and gets more ballot access, their candidates will take away votes from the GOP candidates....

    Vote strategically, my fellow liberals!

  • Here are my comments regarding "So even if the Department of Education was constitutional--and it clearly is not--we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient."

    That's kind of a scary thing to read, but consider this. That's only part of his plan. Perhaps with the completion of his whole plan, it could work, with people helping other people who can't afford school.

    Also, please consider this. Unlike the current top two politicians, he's not trying to become President in order for power a
    • I was discussing politics with some friends the other day, and the LP came up. One of them said, "Oh those guys are really out there. They want to get rid of driver's licenses". I love what the LP stands for, but this one was new to me. So I sat there thinking about whether or not this could be true.

      To my surprise, I was totally unable to come up with an argument for keeping the DMV around. Its stated goal, of ensuring that only qualified people drive, is clearly total bullshit. They don't require an
      • Even if we had a Libertarian President, he or she would still have go to through Congress to make the laws. But most third parties would end up creating a change for the better, no matter how extreme they may sound. But nonetheless, it would be an interesting experiment.

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...