Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the make-your-voice-heard dept.

Politics 1478

Our first interview subject for is the Libertarian Party candidate for US President, Michael Badnarik. You can read his blog to learn more about him. Standard Slashdot interview rules apply: Post your questions today in this discussion. Moderators do your thing. We'll select ~10 questions, and hopefully get answers later this week.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Question (5, Interesting)

Oculus Habent (562837) | more than 10 years ago | (#10236996)

Other than winning, what hopes do you have for the Libertarian Party in the 2004 election?

What? (1)

x-bow (645555) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237000)

I said I don't want to see any lefty pants-wetting or neo-fascist ranting on my front page. Get a grip editors.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237196)

If the blog eschewed sexuality and focused on the real issues, like WTF these wildly borked entitlement programs (Socialist Security, et al.) that are brining Old Europe to the U.S., he might have been worth notice.

Question (5, Interesting)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237002)

Regarding our current system, what do you think can be done to encourage people to vote for third party candidates? It seems to me that most people still feel it's a "wasted vote."

Also, editors - great theme!

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

celeritas_2 (750289) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237051)

How about: How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple canidates and not just two?

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237143)

Honestly, it's not a good idea to have a multi-party system. Sure, you think it's a good think now, but when the next George Bush or Bill Clinton gets elected with 28% of the vote do you think that people will be as accepting of the President's actions? Right now, we've got a nice clean split. One candidate receives very nearly half of the vote, and this means a good portion of the country is represented.

A friend of mine suggested a three-President system, where there were several parties and the top three were elected. This would mean that the three presidents would have to work together to get anything done. He admitted that the only downside to this system is that it's a great way to start a civil war over irreconcilable differences.

Re:Question (4, Insightful)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237185)

Honestly, it's not a good idea to have a multi-party system.

I think the US is the only democracy in the world that does not ahve a multi-party system. In most other democracies, if the winning party has less than a majority of the vote, they have to form a governing coalition in their Parliament.

I am not advocating the idea of switching the US to a parliamentary democracy, I'm just saying that most democracies appear to do well under a multi-party system.

Re:Question (3, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237178)

How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple canidates and not just two?
That's actually pretty easy. 1) you require that the winner be elected by 50+% of the vote, rather than just a simple majority, and 2) You allow people to vote for (or rank) multiple candidates, with varying ways of handling these votes depending on the exact plan.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general idea. I don't see this ever getting passed in the US, but it's certainly possible to set up an election where you can vote for the 3rd party candidate and yet your vote isn't really wasted.

Re:Question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237175)

This is a wasted question. It is a wasted vote. Only weirdos and mutants vote for third parties. Only whack-jobs get their nominations.

Kerry & Bush/Bush & Kerry (1, Offtopic)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237009)

Can we get interviews with Bush & Kerry? I'd love to know what they think about Jib Jab's "This Land is My Land". ;-)

Re:Kerry & Bush/Bush & Kerry (1)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237144)

The only problem with this is that both candidates wouldn't respond to the answers themselves, their publicity people would. That means that most of the questions you'd ask would be answered with vague and predictable responses.

I'd love to see them answer some meaningful questions, but I just don't see this working well.

Note: I am a Bush fanboy.

Personal Responsible Corporations? (5, Interesting)

FriedTurkey (761642) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237011)

How does the Libertarian Party, whose platform is a complete free market economy with personal responsibility, expect the economy to prosper with the recent corporate scandals such as Enron?

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations? (1)

BlurredWeasel (723480) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237047)

You do realize fraud is still illegal under a "perfect" libertarian government. Companies are not allowed to lie in order to make a buck. (especially on finacials)

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations? (5, Insightful)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237142)

I think the original poster was thinking more along these lines: Fraud may still be illegal, but under a "perfect" libertarian government, would an entity like the SEC even exist? After all, it is the job of the SEC to regulate the markets. Doesn't that very job contradict the libertarian ideals? If the there isn't an entity regulating the markets, how do you catch the Enron's, the WorldCom's, the CNBC talking heads that are hyping a company that they have money invested in, etc?

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237187)

You'd have multiple private SEC's the companies would voluntarily choose to be audited & regulated by. Whichever private SEC was the most trusted would be the one most investors would have confidence in.

If any one of them ever let an Enron happen, they'd lose their reputation and thier customers would abandon them, leaving their more trustworthy competitors to survive..

Re:Personal Responsible Corporations? (1)

vhold (175219) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237109)

I wonder if the idea of a corporation as being it's own citizen is nonlibertarian, in which case they could just say that the individuals involved in the scandal could all be individually sued by the people they wrongfully ripped off.

That would be a kind of cop out answer though, what would be a lot more interesting for example would be the steps required to eliminate the nonliability of corporate executives.

I'm not a libertarian so I'm just making this all up, but I just figured that the idea of personal responsibility was a big libertarian thing so therefore the idea of corporations limiting the fruad liability of it's employees seems nonlibertarian to me. I wonder what kind of massive downside there would be to limiting corporate liability and replacing it with personal.. some crane operator accidently kills a coworker and in most cases he is held directly responsible in a civil trial and the company gets off without paying a thing?

Why do you bother? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237013)

It's clear it's always going to be a two horse race. What motivates you when there's zero chance of you getting into power?

Re:Why do you bother? (1)

almeida (98786) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237062)

He doesn't want to be in power. He wants (the universal) you to be in power. That's the whole point.

Re:Why do you bother? (3, Informative)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237149)


Over 600 Libertarians are serving in public office -- more than all other third parties combined.

Baby steps...

are some free trade restrictions necessary? (5, Interesting)

toasted_calamari (670180) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237015)

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?

Where are we headed? (5, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237020)

Where do you see America in 5/10/15 years under its current leadership? Where do you see America in the same timeframe with you as the president? What broad steps will you take to get us there?

Libertarians (-1, Offtopic)

Kogase (811902) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237022)

How come I have no idea who the Libertarians are?

Re:Libertarians (0)

Stradenko (160417) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237058)

Because you've failed to follow the links in the post. []

Re:Libertarians (1)

Kogase (811902) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237108)

You failed to grasp the point of my decidedly unsubtle question.

Re:Libertarians (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237122)

Because you've been duped by the Republicrats into believing that in the political world there are Democrats and Republicans and nothing else.

Democrats and Republicans are ideologically different, but they agree on one thing: third parties must never be allowed to gain significant power in government.

What OS do you use? (2, Interesting)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237025)

Seriously, though I know what the answer is likely to be. Politicians probably have bigger things to care about, But this is /.

Why should I waste my vote on you. (5, Interesting)

nlinecomputers (602059) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237026)

I tend to hold a Libertarian point of view but you have NO chance of ever being elected President. Aren't there more viable methods to get your viewpoint heard such as PACs or lobbyists?

Re:Why should I waste my vote on you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237162)

Obviously you're a Demopublican.

Why, oh why? (-1, Troll)

cytoman (792326) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237029)

Why do these fringe parties even try? And people with extreme ideas like the libertarians... you don't stand a chance of winning in a trillion years... why do you waste your time, money and the nations resources?

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

chadm1967 (144897) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237084)

How are they wasting the nations resources?????

Why are they so wrong just because you don't agree with them?

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237125)

They're not wasting "the nation's resources" - they're (arguably) "wasting" their own resources.

Re:Why, oh why? (2, Informative)

johndeeregator (549310) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237130)

It's his time and money, he can do what he wants with them. (Although GWB and JFK probably think that they can do a better job of telling you what you should be doing with your own time and money.)

And he's not wasting the nation's resources. The LP will not accept federal money to run their campaigns, even though they wouldn't get any anyhow. (Isn't it nice how the Dems and Reps set up a system under which only they are allowed to use our nation's resources?)

Re:Why, oh why? (2, Informative)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237133)

Yes, we should all just sit back and take whatever our masters want to give to us.

Don't be a jackass. You run because you want your ideas to spread, to give them a forum and maybe, just maybe, make other "mainstream" candidates pull towards your line of thinking.

Regulation (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237031)

Mr. Badnarik, as president, would you support breaking up monopolies such as Microsoft to enable competition?

Thank you.

Would you still do it? (-1, Flamebait)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237033)

Would you still be a libertarian if you had to start over at an equal economic footing with everyone else in the country, or are you just another rich guy who wants to get out of his taxes because he can afford everything besides self-protection?

In my experience (5, Interesting)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237043)

In my experience, a lot of what the libertarian platform stands for makes a lot of sense and I whole-heartedly agree with. The problem is, the parts that I don't agree with seem absolutely batshit insane (i.e. privatizing sidewalks? WTF?). So my question is basically, do I find myself agreeing with you because I'm a little crazy or disagreeing with you because you're a little crazy.

Re:In my experience (2, Funny)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237132)

In my experience, a lot of what the libertarian platform stands for makes a lot of sense and I whole-heartedly agree with. The problem is, the parts that I don't agree with seem absolutely batshit insane (i.e. privatizing sidewalks? WTF?). So my question is basically, do I find myself agreeing with you because I'm a little crazy or disagreeing with you because you're a little crazy.

This is the most succinct expression of my feelings towards the libertarian party I have ever read. Oh, to have mod points right now...

Re:In my experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237171)

> (i.e. privatizing sidewalks? WTF?)

That's already the case in a lot of San Francisco's financial district. All those "permission to pass" plaques, and yes most of them extend to the sidewalk. The building owners already pay for the sidewalk's upkeep anyway.

Of course this is 40 story bank buildings, not joe's deli, where the owner barely clears his mortgage. He'd prefer to just not have to own the sidewalk.

Induce our vote (5, Interesting)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237044)

What are you views and hopes for privacy and security for the citizens of the internet age, and how do you proactively aim to safegaurd and give back our rights that have been eroded away. (INDUCE act, PATRIOT act, et al)

Mod parent up, please. (1)

keiferb (267153) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237158)

This covers my question (and more) and is worded better to boot.... mod up!

PATRIOT act (5, Interesting)

keiferb (267153) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237045)

What's your view on the Patriot act? What, if any, parts do you think need to be changed, and why?

Obstacles (2 questions) (4, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237046)

What obstacles do third party candidates have to overcome to get on a state ballot? How do they differ from how Democrats and Republicans get on the ballot?

You know you can't win (5, Interesting)

ellem (147712) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237050)

I have voeted Libertarian the last 3 elections but this year the stakes are too high. You know you can't win. Have you considered "Deaning" your supporters and asking them to vote for Bush or Kerry depending on who you think should be President (besides yourself)?

Re:You know you can't win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237215)

Not a chance, and here's why. Libertarians are idealists by nature--that's why they're libertarians--and idealists suffer an inability to compromise. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

Emacs or vi? (0, Offtopic)

arose (644256) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237053)

Geeks want to know.

Re:Emacs or vi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237128)

Bah, he'll probably say notepad. *shudder*

What happens to people who fall between the cracks (5, Interesting)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237055)

The downside of removing the safety net is that there will be people who don't have the skills needed to succeed; we can't all be the best at what we do after all. Any system has winners and losers. What is your plan for the losers under your system? Charities only do so much after all.

odd background for a presidential candidate. (5, Interesting)

Eric Seppanen (79060) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237056)

Some background information: Dark Horse on the Third Ballot []
Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

...He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237153)

Which leads to a valid interview question: why does the LP insist on associating itself with kooks?

One Lyndon LaRouche is enough, already.

Re:odd background for a presidential candidate. (5, Informative)

Peyna (14792) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237160)

U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Is that a good enough explanation?

Reaffirming the Constitution (5, Interesting)

pegr (46683) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237057)

Given the current political climate of entitlement, pork-barrel spending, and district vote-buying, how can we get this country back into compliance with the spirit and letter of the Constitution?

Anagram of Michael Badnarik (0, Flamebait)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237064)

Michael Badnarik = I'm a backhand lier

Anagram of the day? (go on, test it! and yes, it isn't perfect)

Another anagram... sorry playing around (3, Funny)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237166)

Michael Badnarik = I'd hire a blackman

Equal oppourtunity, he has my vote!

Michael Badnarik = A chairman bilked

bilked: To defraud, cheat, or swindle: made millions bilking wealthy clients on art sales.

Michael Badnarik = A Chi Mandrake Lib

So he uses mandrake huh? With balanced libraries!

Michael Badnarik = A animal bred hick

Out with the old, in with the new!

Mod parent up as funny? (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237207)

I mean come on! Have a sense of humour! and it is a valid anagram!

"Should have gone to..." (4, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237067)

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?

Two party system (-1, Flamebait)

$exyNerdie (683214) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237068)

What do you think of two party system and where it is leading the country to. There are many conspiracy theories regarding America's secret elite societies running the government (Bush Jr, Senior, many CIA directors, senators, etc member oh just one). This year's election candidates George Bush and John Kerry both belong to ultra secret elite society called Skull and Bones and they put their society's agenda over anything else... So what do you think of two party system.
Here is a video clip where both George Bush and John Kerry admit they belong to the secret society Skull and Bones: 804dictatorspreview.htm []

If it would make you a president... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237072)

...would you have

B) Sex with a mare?

Third Parties (0, Redundant)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237075)

How do you feel that you will do against Green Party candidate Nader and why?

The real question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237076)

Zip then fasten or fasten then zip?

Are you a PATRIOT fan? No, not football (5, Interesting)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237083)

Mr. Badnarik, a two-parter if I may ...
1. If elected, what stance would you take on the PATRIOT Act, DMCA, and INDUCE?

2. Would you do anything to try and reduce the influence of nutjob organizations (Fellowship, C-Street Center, etc) in federal politics? For that matter, would you do anything to return Washington to citizens and take it away from lobbyists/corporations?

purpose? (5, Interesting)

mikeee (137160) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237085)

The structure of the US voting system is such that two major parties appear to be the only stable political alignment (though on a couple of occasions, one of the major parties has imploded and been replaced).

Given this, why is a 3rd (4th/5th) party a good use of political resources, rather than explicitly trying to shift one or both of the major parties toward your viewpoint?

Re:purpose? (1)

vhold (175219) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237188)

Gaining any votes as a 3rd party seems likely in and of itself to persuade the other 2 parties towards your platform. Any swing state where the 2 parties might be fighting in a 1 or 2 percentage race, if the 3rd party manages to represent even 1%, why not try to appeal to them in your campaigning?

Don't vote this guy... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237087)

... his name itself tells us he's BAD! Instead, vote for Michael Goodnarik!!

How can you even begin to be viable (5, Interesting)

discovercomics (246851) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237092)

How can you even begin to be a viable choice if you don't have candidates across the board in a majority of electorial races. Even if your positions are fantastic on the issues without at least a glimmer of support from the congress you are dead in the water.

Q: How would you be able to lead and govern effectively when you would very little support from the congress?

third party candidates mean nothing (1)

John_Allen_Mohammed (811050) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237097)

at least in the presidential election. If you truly want to make changes in the american system of politics, third party candidates need to win on a state by state level... not in the federal elections. This will achieve nothing.

Of course, nothing much is gained in american politics by third party candidates because winner-takes-all, thus you have 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th parties just stealing votes from the primary (most electable) parties.....

Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc parties make sense but not in america... They are truly fucked. Sure there are a few "independent" candidates out there but thats truly the exception.

Do I have a question ? Ya, When will you be withdrawing your candidacy from this race ? That's the only question that's of any importance. One that Ralph Nader will never acknowledge, will you ?

Re:third party candidates mean nothing (1)

vhold (175219) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237154)

On the other hand, sure they won't win an presidential election for eons to come, but as they slowly creep into the national awareness by having a semi-interesting and noticable presidential election showout it helps the party in virtually every other political campaign that you speak of.

Howard Stern (5, Interesting)

ellem (147712) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237103)

Howard ran for New York Govener under your party's name. What do you think about:

Howard's fight with the current FCC

Howard's hard turn Left

Howard Stern being your FCC Commissioner.

Re:Howard Stern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237206)

If I recall correctly, Howard has never described himself publically as a "libertarian." He won the NYLP's nomination for Governor that year by stacking the nominating convention with his supporters. It was basically just a big publicity stunt. He has spoken well of some libertarian positions, in the general sense, at times. He's also had libertarians and libertarian candidates on his show and made fun of them, at times, too. I'm a fan, but Howard is in it for Howard basically. He's not supporting Kerry for any other reason than his personal war with the FCC, for right or wrong.

Why should I vote for you... (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237104)

...considering you don't stand a better chance at winning the election than the drunk homeless guy I saw pissing on the sidewalk this morning.

Policing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237106)

Do you believe it is the U.S.'s responsibility to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of american lives going around the world kicking "brutal dictators" out of power? Do you think Hussain had anything to do with 9/11 and do you think he had chemical, nuclear and biological weapons stockpiled as Bush claimed.

How do you enforce rights in an ownership society? (5, Interesting)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237107)

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?

Everyone is thinking it! (3, Interesting)

ZipprHead (106133) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237110)

Common, everyone is thinking it, who do think will win? And if Kerry looses what do you expect to see out of the current administration?

Compulsory schooling (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237113)

Are you going to do something about compulsory schooling ? Are you going to free our children from the government's iron fist ?

(cf. John Taylor Gatto, as seen earlier on /.)

How about... (5, Interesting)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237118)

Could you explain your belief that the United States is to blame for 9/11?

War on Iraq and other dictatorships (5, Interesting)

philipdl71 (160261) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237123)

Do you believe that the U.S. Government has the right to invade countries run by dictators like Saddam Hussein and liberate the people by establishing a free society even if those countries do not threaten the United States?

In a nutshell, how does the libertarian principle of non-initiation of force apply to foreign dictators? Who or what has the right to unseat these dictators?

2 questions (5, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237124)

  1. Via a presidential order, GWB allowed past presidents to hide anything that they wanted by declaring it national security. Will you lift this order and restore our right to know what our past presidents have done?
  2. Is your priority to balance the budget first and then cut taxes, or is to cut taxes followed by balancing the budget, the same way that Reagan and GWB has done?

Morality (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237126)

I am an ill-fitting member of one of the two dominant political parties. I have been interested in the past in libertarian ideals and thoughts and did some amount of research.

My understanding is that libertarians have a belief system where individual are free from regulation and rules.

This seems like a great way to live until I start running some of the possible scenarios and consequences to my family, specifcally my children.

What sorts of regulations and rules if any do libertarians believe are necessary to prevent the descent into "survival of the fittest"?

Global Economy (3, Interesting)

ffejie (779512) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237134)

Much of your platform involves removing troops and money from foreign lands. Although many people agree that we should focus on home before abroad, how do you respond to critics that say removing support from the UN, the World Bank etc. will cause the global economy to collapse?

Most Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237136)

How soon after getting elected will Americans have the ability to use marijuana legally? Will there be a 5 day waiting period for the purchase of bongs under your Administration?

Federal Regulators. (5, Interesting)

Irvu (248207) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237138)

I have seen several of your posters that include, among other things, the following bullet point: "Every Federal Regulator that we fire produces 150 new jobs, enough to re-hire all of those federal regulators and the able-bodied poor."

What I wanted to know is, how does that work exactlly. If I were to say fire a building safety inspector, an Air Traffic controller, or an inspector with the FDA how would that produce jobs? And, how would we guarantee that no adverse effect (salmopnella in the food) would result?

How.. (1)

Heem (448667) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237139)

How are we going to get people to realize it's not just a two party system, and some of our greatest presidents were neither Republican or Democrat?

320.5 (5, Funny)

sudotcsh (95997) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237140)

Do you find you have problems keeping the whole Dewey Decimal system straight? What do you think about their licensing fees?

Pardon me - hold on a second.


Oh. Libertarian. My bad.

Why? (1)

Dr Rick (588459) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237145)

You have no chance of winning and the majority of the populace will not even have heard of you by the time they vote. What do you hope to accomplish by running?

Alternative voting schemes? (1)

Karger (259348) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237146)

As long as "most votes wins" is the rule, voting for a third party candidate can be worse than a waste---it can contribute to the worse of the two realistic contenders being elected. Instead of working to be elected, shouldn't you be working to change our voting system to something like preferential voting, which would make it reasonable to vote for you?

Defensive Voting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10237150)

To what extent has defensive voting affected ballots cast for Libertarian candidates?

For example, in the upcoming presidential election people who would like to vote for you may cast votes for John Kerry since he probably has the best chance at defeating George Bush Jr.

Assume Badnarik is elected (1, Interesting)

maximilln (654768) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237156)

If Michael Badnarik were to be elected as president of the United States of America, what would be the most likely offensive that he would encounter from the political back rooms of the Big Two? Would it be personal blackmail? Would it be a sex scandal? Would it be a collaborative set up along the lines of sinking Wall Street and then blaming it on the President?

What is the Libertarian contingency plan for elected officials who receive the short end of the scapegoat stick? Have Libertarians been targeted by such schemes in the past if and when they held positions of any significant political power? How corrupt is the game in Washington DC?

If you're running for president... (1)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237159)

Why does it feel like the only way I have heard about you is online? I know it is important to "embrace the new", but seriously I haven't really heard anything except what I read online.

Do most people read their news online now? I doubt it, there are few sites I trust enough to "believe what I see online". And those sites are mostly the same news corporations that are on TV and in the papers, so I don't generally visit their links anyway.

But is he able? (2, Interesting)

hkb (777908) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237161)

Was elected Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University, and became a BMOC ('big man on campus') known for getting things done, while always maintaining the high principles instilled by his parents.

No offense, but that's not something I'd put as the first paragraph of my political resume for my PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES campaign.

Then again, it's his right to run.

became an independent computer consultant in 2001


Became interested in the U.S. Constitution in 1983 and began a life-long journey in self-study of this founding document of the country he is so proud to call his home.

This is respectable but hardly enough to qualify him for ruler of the free world. Though, he does get points for apparently being familiar with the meaning of the Constitution, unlike Bush, Ashcroft, Kerry, et al.

I don't really pay much attention to the progress of the Libertarian party, but if this is the best they can come up with...things are looking pretty sorry for them.

Morality? (4, Interesting)

Milo Fungus (232863) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237176)

Several (most?) of the American Revolutionaries believed in the moral tradition of Western Europe, including Christianity, chastity, honesty, etc. A representative quote is from John Adams, who said:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

What are your views on this issue? Are your views consistent with the predominant views of the Founders? Please explain.

It is not difficult to argue that the importance of these values and morals are being diminished in our current society. Do you think there is a direct relationship between this change in our moral climate and the changes in civil liberties that have heppened in the last hundred or so years? Or do you think that these changes are not directly related to one another?

Any electoral votes? (4, Interesting)

sharkb8 (723587) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237179)

I think we can all agree that, being a minor party, the Libertarians run little risk of getting any of the electoral vote. If that's the case, why do you run? I'm honestly curious, is it to educate voters, try to expand the two party system? Is it even to simply voice your views? Or is this merely the first step in total world domination?

Nader seems to have gotten away from doing what would be best for the country, and made his Independent Party bid an ego thing.

I agree that our current system of governance sucks, but the system was built so that things changed slowly, so that one person, pressident, or session of congress couldn't radically change America. Do you propose making incremental changes from the inside, or are you hoping for dissatisfaction with the current system to foster whole scale change in American politics?

Gaining Acceptance (3, Interesting)

dougermouse (581787) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237180)

I have been following you since your improbable run at the convention, but this question is one that is on the lips of many people who started with interest but faded from the LP:

The usual LP line is interpreted as: Don't touch my money or my weed, which turns off a lot of moderate voters. Combine that with your semantics stands on ZIP codes people equate the LP with the Loony Party. People see the "Fringe" ideas first and completely loose interest.

How do you hope to fight the usual LP labels?

Voting (2, Insightful)

Munden (681257) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237181)

Because you are such an underdog why should the American public vote for you? It seems to me like it would be throwing a vote away. I would never want Bush back in office and I do not care much for Kerry but if John Kerry has the best chance of taking Bush out why would I vote for you?

Non-compete clauses (4, Interesting)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237197)

Do you think that non-compete clauses in contracts should be acceptiable as long as both parties voluntarily agree to them?

If not, what other agreements are people not allowed to engage in?

If so, how do you stop people from hiding them in long, seemingly unrelated contracts in order to create a new class of indentured servants. Is a world where every single agreement you would ever make would have to go through a lawyer to make sure that there isn't some poison pill buried in there really a better and freer place than the one we live in now?

Financial Contributers (2)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237198)

Who are your three biggest finicial contributers?

Colloidal Silver (1)

crazyhorse44 (242315) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237199)

How much colloidal silver does a Libertarian Senate candidate have to drink before he turns smurf blue?

timing (5, Interesting)

j1mmy (43634) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237203)

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.

Former Programmer (1)

TheJavaGuy (725547) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237204)

From Zogby []

"Badnarik is a computer programmer and technical trainer from Austin, Tex. He declined to say if he could program an electronic voting system that would deliver a Libertarian victory."

"I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said 'Diebold (a system vendor): Making machines that vote so you don't have to,'" said Badnarik.

Intellectual Property (5, Interesting)

geoff313 (718010) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237208)

As the offical Libertarian party cadidate for president, where do you stand on the issue of intellectual property? Should it be considered the same as traditional property, or should IP be not subjected to the same protections that physical property is? And do you feel that your personal views on the subject reflect the views of the majority of the party itself, or is this an issue that has the potential to polarize your party much the same way that abortion does for the Democrats and Republicans?

Why? (5, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237210)

Why are you for unlimited immigration with no caps and no requirments?

Gambling and individual rationality (4, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 10 years ago | (#10237211)

Do you believe that someone should have the right to gamble with their bodily organs, and that the government should enforce the result?

This may seem like a crazy question, but I know people that call themselves Libertarians who would argue that you should.

If you agree with them - aren't you putting your ideology before the common sense realisation that people aren't always perfectly rational?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?