Libertarian Candidate Michael Badnarik Interview 188
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Well-meaning idealist with no sense of reality. (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Quick aside: My problem with Libertarianism (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ASU was confirmed, is, apparently, not good enough.
Personally I think it was a major miscarriage of justice, and would have made for interesting reading if any of the mainstream media had picked it up.
Re:Word up (Score:3, Interesting)
Badnarik it is (Nader isn't on in Ohio and Cobb is an asshat).
Re:Did he get the memo? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 knowing what was at stake and made a concious decision to serve their country. Billions in funding don't hurt, but that Abrams M-1 doesn't drive itself.
The problem with an all-volunteer military is that its members signed up because they thought it was the right thing to do, so they work best when the work they are doing is also the right thing to do. When bureaucrats start having imperialist wet dreams [wikipedia.org] about oil producing nations, the work that the military is asked to do starts to diverge from what the volunteers volunteered for, and things just don't run as smoothly as they have before.
So the draftees don't want the draft. The draftors don't want the draft. But neither of them are calling the shots, are they?
So Badnarik has the balls to call their (very thin) bluff. And he has the balls to state his party's position in terms that say to an individual voter "you are not the most important person on the face of the earth". I want to like him, but I have to respect him.