. 
This guy is a regular Rhoades Scholar.
Abortion... Michael would like to begin by emphasizing the fact that this is a states rights issue, and should not be handled by the federal(national) government at all
Kind of inconsistent, wouldnt you say? Why is it a civil right for gays to marry, but a States rights issue with regards to abortion? I would think, from a Libertarian point of view, that it should be the other way around; the right to life extends to "life", including time inside the womb, and local entities, democratically (not by judicial edict) could decide on gay marriage.
This guy might have a libertinian instinct, rather than a Libertarian one, perhaps.
Americans are not required to fill out government forms in order to practice their religion
They are if they don't want to be taxed for it in various ways.
The Libertarian solution is to decriminalize drugs, which will make drugs extremely cheap, which will remove the profit motivation for selling drugs, which will result in fewer children taking drugs.
Why would they be "extremely cheap" when there is a black market already available? There will certainly be a profit motive, just as many prescription drugs are sold illegally. Why would fewer children take drugs when the risk of punishment for taking them will be removed?
Michael would also eliminate the NEED for an income tax by abolishing hundreds of unconstitutional offices and government programs.
First of all, how does he think he is going to accomplish this unilaterally, without Congress? Secondly, as long as there is any government, there will be taxes to pay for it. So is he going to limit government (still need taxes) or abolish government? I think most of America supports some form of government. Also, taxes are constitutional.
Americans will experience a sudden increase in their take-home pay when they no longer have money withheld from their paychecks. This will trigger rapid economic growth which means that all of the newly unemployed government workers would be able to find "real" jobs in the private sector.
Well he said he'd eliminate the need for an income tax, but as long as there is government, the need for taxes HASN'T been eliminated. So where will the funding come from? What form of taxation would he substitute for income taxes? And how will it trigger economic growth unless all of that money the government is saving is returned to the people? I didn't see anything about tax CUTS. Just reduced spending. Perhaps this is just an oversight. Also, is he planning on repealing the 16th amendment all by himself?
American intervention in Iraq American aggression in Iraq is unconstitutional because Congress has never declared war.
Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. This is also known as a declaration of war.
Michael doesn't have enough information to know whether or not the United States should be there or not, however he strongly suspects that the real motivation for being there is probably economic rather than ethical.
Don't tell me he's a conspiracy nut holding up "No War For Oil" posters. How has the war in Iraq benefitted the US economically? And isn't a better reason the fact that Iraq is a terrorist state, and regime change in Iraq can help stabilize the Middle East?
Well I'm glad he admits what he doesn't know, but I hope he figures it out between now and November. It's kind of a big deal.
Michael is a tireless advocate of INDIVIDUAL rights, and since homosexuals qualify as individuals, Michael can find no rational reason to discriminate against them.
Homosexuals have the same exact right to marry as anyone else, along with foot fetishists, cross-dressers, and masochists. A man has the right to marry a woman no matter what his sexual proclivities, as long as she is not related to him and neither is already married. And vice versa.
Michael claims autonomy over his own life and who he chooses to associate with, therefore two individuals of the same sex who voluntarily choose to live together clearly have the same right to claim that autonomy.
Who is stopping them from "claiming autonomy"? Who is stopping them from associating with whomever they choose?
Keep in mind that 100% of all homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents, and there was apparently nothing they could do to influence their children to share their preference.
Not only is this illogical, it is also untrue. 100% of homosexual children may well have been created by the physical union of a man and a woman, but there is no guarantee that the two parents were heterosexual, nor any reason to believe that they raised the child. There are homosexuals who were raised by same-sex partners, and MANY homosexuals raised by single parents. So it is not true that 100% of homosexuals had heterosexual parents. In fact, this is so illogical it is useless to answer it.
Having the "right to life" implies that we also have the right to keep ourselves alive in the face of a violent attack.
Well, unless you're in the womb and then you only have the right if your state says so...right?
Michael does not feel any satisfaction in terminating anyone's life, even if they are sociopathic.
But it isn't for YOUR satisfaction Mr. Badnarik. It's the only way to ensure that person will never take another life. And more siginificantly, it's the only proper balance for the life they took.
Michael would require them to remain in bed all day for the first month, and twelve hours per day after that. This lack of activity would allow their muscles to atrophy, making them helpless couch potatoes incapable of inflicting very much violence on each other, the guards, or unsuspecting citizens should they manage to escape.
This guy watched the movie Se7en and actually got ideas! Who is going to pay for the medical bills that will result from this cruel and unusual punishment? This is torture. You may or may not have a problem torturing sociopaths Mr. Badnarik, but it is unconstitutional. Unlike capital punishment.
Michael would like to begin by emphasizing the fact that this is a states rights issue, and should not be handled by the federal(national) government at all.
Well if you believe that abortion violates both a child's right to life and its property rights, how can you say this is a "states' rights issue"? Since when are these fundamental rights granted by the state?
All in all, is this the best the Libertarian Party can do?
The convention opened with Gary Nolan the favorite, with Aaron Russo the potential upset candidate. Instead, on the first ballot they were all within 20 votes of each other, with roughly around 250 votes cast for each one.
Badnarick came in second, between Nolan and Russo (who led). But after Nolan lost on the second round of balloting, most of the Nolan delegates switched to Badnarik.
And I WAS THERE! On the floor, voting with the other delegates. A most exciting day. Feels good to be a Libertarian!
.