What Would You Ask the Libertarian Party Candidate? (FReeper to Interview Him)

Libertarian Party

[governsleastgovernsbest]

On October 5th, for purposes of a local TV program I host, I'll have the opportunity to conduct a one-hour, one-on-one interview with Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Party presidential candidate, who is said to be polling as much as 3% and who could conceivably impact the race in a number of states.

I'd be interested to hear from my fellow FReepers. What do you know about Badnarik? What questions would you want to see asked?

Your thoughts?

[meenie]

Sentences can mean anything. Actions mean more, especially with politicians. I don't see any meaningful action to close the border nor a promise to close the border from either candidate. So sorry, but the nonsense is in your corner.

[null and void]

That too.

[TitansAFC]

I'm glad to see you're at the front lines, protecting our right to bear arms. As they have often said, if they takes our guns away, what will we use to shoot the Liberals with?

The point of my question is simply to point out that Libertarians do not hold the Papacy on the holy scriptures we know as the Constitution, as is always implicit to me in their criticism of people like myself (a conservative Republican). They hold rights as most valuable (as is their freedom to do so), not the Constitution. In other words, a Libertarian would treat the Constitution in much the same way as the Democrats if, say, a super-majority of citizens and elected officials amended it in such a way that displeased Libertarians.

So the Constitution is not sacrosanct to Libertarians, but certain inalienable rights are. This question is important to me because it proves that Republicans who are not completely Libertarian have just as much respect for the Constitution as Libertarians, despite what some have said.

I for one am tired of being told that I have less understanding of the Constitution or our forefathers' intentions, or less respect for such because I do not adhere to Libertarian views ad hominum. It is not the document or the intentions of it that Libertarians give primacy, but certain inalienable rights as they deem appropriate. It is their right to have such a belief, as it is my right to believe that the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to insult Libertarians; I'm just trying to point out that Republicans have just as much respect for the Constitution as they do. Sometimes you just disagree on certain things......

For the record, I am adamantly pro-gun and partially undecided on the drug legalization issue. I would say that I favor Republican policy on drugs right now, and Libertarian policy on guns. Just so you know where I stand as I ask the questions.

Thanks for your thoughts!!

[Ruadh]

Ahh, now I understand. I took your comment to be a misunderstanding of what Libertarians were about. And the "holy scriptures we know as the Constitution" is most decidedly not it. If that misconception is out there, then I'm glad to help dispel it.

FDR started a drift away from the Constitution that has continued until today there is very little correspondence between that document and the government that actually exists. Since the Constitution is more libertarian than the current government, reverence for the document (and for the rule of law) can be used in an attempt to move the government in a libertarian direction. This may explain the arguments you are getting.

I think respect for our Constitution overlaps the Libertarian and Republican parties. The conservative wings of both parties value it. On the Libertarian side, the anarcho-capitalists don't, very much. (I once brought up a Constitutional point, and one of them said, "So what, I didn't sign it.") And Republicans have the RINOs.

The rule of law is important, and should not be disregarded for trifling causes, but there are higher values. What if the People decided to amend the Constitution make legal the extermination of the Jews. Would you go along? Elevating that document to your HIGHEST value would be a mistake.

[TitansAFC]

Amen.

Thanks for the honest words!!

[Ruadh]

You're welcome.

[Commie Basher]

Why do you want to maximize the chances of John Kerry being elected President?

Because Kerry is no worse than Bush?

[cyborg]

LOL

[Commie Basher]

Does he mean that there should be unlimited immigration? Throw open our borders?

It can't be more "open" than it already is under the Demopublicans and Republicrats.

[Commie Basher]

"How come you guys hate Jews?"

Libertarians have always had a disproportionately large number of Jewish members, so your "question" is ignorant.

[Commie Basher]

Tell me, Mr. Badnarik, why the ideology-addled L.P. believes that the supposed 'right' to choose evil (which results in an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering) is more sacrosanct than the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Because one man's evil is another man's happiness?

[Commie Basher]

I do not advocate the initiation of force. I didn't agree to not respond to force. ... Why is the party unable to recognize 9/11 as an initiation of force, and advocate responding appropriately,

Because Bush has not responded "appropriately."

Why are Bush supporters unable to realize that an initiation of force by individuals (which 9/11 was) does not grant one the right to "respond" against an unrelated wish list of nations, much less against an entire religion or people (as some FReepers seem eager to do.)

[Commie Basher]

If progress is OK, would George Bush or John Kerry move you closer to your goals?

Progress may also be defined as (1) increasing LP vote totals, or (2) spoiling an election for Bush, which would bring greater news media attention and financing, and thus votes, over the long term.

At this point, I'd like to see a GOP Congress and Kerry presidency. I hated Clinton, yet in retrospect, a gridlocked Clinton was better than Bush currently is. So I'm hoping for a gridlocked Kerry, rather than a Bush win.

And if the LP manages to throw the election to Kerry, so much the better. It'll mean that the GOP ignores us at their peril.

[TC Rider]

Why do you allow the "legalize marijauna" crowd to run your party?

Exactly, the pro-drug people drown out the messages that would really resonate with many Americans. I voted LIB one time, in 1976. We ended up with Carter.

sigh

[null and void]

And your idea of an appropriate response is?

[HairOfTheDog]

What Would You Ask the Libertarian Party Candidate? (FReeper to Interview Him)

How do you deal with the loneliness?

(Pic taken at WA state fair)

[governsleastgovernsbest]

LOL

[Commie Basher]

Go after the individual criminals responsible, rather than invade a wish list of nations.

Bush & company entered the White House already looking to invade Iraq. They hijacked 9/11, using it as their excuse for a war they'd already planned.

[Commie Basher]

Yeah, just ask him his position on Israel...

Are you saying that if someone opposes aid to Israel, as the Badnarik does (which is consistent with the LP's policy toward all nations), then that means he's anti-Jewish?

By that logic, the logic of the Left, anyone who opposes affirmative action is racist.

How ironic that some "conservatives" are using the logic of the Left. That some "conservatives" are using the smear tactics of the Left. "Give special aid to my favorite racial/religious/sexual/national group, or you're racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-Semetic."

[Uncle Vlad]

I'm a "Reagan Libertarian" who thinks Boortz is one f the few sane Libertarians around. The question I would ask the Libertarian candidate is, "Why is it that most Libertarians are so awful at selling their ideas?"

"My second question would be, "Why don't you understand that the only way to deal with terrorists is to go out and exterminate them?"