Badnarik Interview- Thoughts?

[David S]

So, I've been bad in the last couple of months and I havn't been listening to my NPR station (or any station for that matter). In that absence I missed this interview: http://www.kuow.org/weekday.asp?Archive=08-16 . I just finished listening to it and I think MB made himself sound kind of like an ass. And it made me feel more like he is an extreamist. Extremists don't get votes. Hrmm.. anywya.. thoughts?

Final comment, I agree with the guy who is concerned about the environment.

I listened to part of it. What in particular bothered you about it?
In my opinion it was not one of his better performances because he seemed to be distracted and not as clear as he sometimes is. But I didn't hear anything that sounded extreme unless you believe that Libertarian philosophy ( belief in the constitution) is extreme.

[David S]

So, I've been bad in the last couple of months and I havn't been listening to my NPR station (or any station for that matter). In that absence I missed this interview: http://www.kuow.org/weekday.asp?Archive=08-16 . I just finished listening to it and I think MB made himself sound kind of like an ass. And it made me feel more like he is an extreamist. Extremists don't get votes. Hrmm.. anywya.. thoughts?

Final comment, I agree with the guy who is concerned about the environment.

I listened to part of it. What in particular bothered you about it?
In my opinion it was not one of his better performances because he seemed to be distracted and not as clear as he sometimes is. But I didn't hear anything that sounded extreme unless you believe that Libertarian philosophy ( belief in the constitution) is extreme.

It's hard to put my finger on it a day later, but there definately were a few things there. I'll agree that he seemed off because so did the host of the show. That station is usually top notch.

Sometimes Michael Badnarik is very impressive and sometimes he's not. He was very good at the convention, but somedays he seems clumsy. Bush was like that before too, although he is a better speaker now than when he was first elected.
I think Badnarik was surprised to win the nomination and now feels obligated to put his heart and soul into  the campaign. He might be pushing a little too hard.

[David S]

I recently listened to Badnarik's constitutional class at:

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badnarik

After sitting through 7 hours (not all in one go) I feel he is certainly a man who understands the Constitution and freedom very well.

As for extremism? Well, that is so relative isn't it? I mean many things which are very good and very true are considered extremist, as are things which are very bad and false.

One can allow a little "foaming at the mouth" in those who have taken the time and made the effort to learn just what is going on in the world today, and those forces seeking to rob us of our liberties.

If I were an American I would vote for someone like Badnarik or Peroutka *never* Bush or Kerry who both uphold and promote policies which lessen freedom.

Wow thats the most libertarian comment I've heard from a UK citizen! Its very refreshing to hear.  Are there any more left like you?
I agree with John. We could use you in the U.S.

[David S]

So, I've been bad in the last couple of months and I havn't been listening to my NPR station (or any station for that matter). In that absence I missed this interview: http://www.kuow.org/weekday.asp?Archive=08-16 . I just finished listening to it and I think MB made himself sound kind of like an ass. And it made me feel more like he is an extreamist. Extremists don't get votes. Hrmm.. anywya.. thoughts?

Final comment, I agree with the guy who is concerned about the environment.

I listened to part of it. What in particular bothered you about it?
In my opinion it was not one of his better performances because he seemed to be distracted and not as clear as he sometimes is. But I didn't hear anything that sounded extreme unless you believe that Libertarian philosophy ( belief in the constitution) is extreme.

It's hard to put my finger on it a day later, but there definately were a few things there. I'll agree that he seemed off because so did the host of the show. That station is usually top notch.

Sometimes Michael Badnarik is very impressive and sometimes he's not. He was very good at the convention, but somedays he seems clumsy. Bush was like that before too, although he is a better speaker now than when he was first elected.
I think Badnarik was surprised to win the nomination and now feels obligated to put his heart and soul into  the campaign. He might be pushing a little too hard.

Heart and sole my foot and crotch! I finally listen to the debate between he and Cobb- he totally prewrote everything! Watch it (CSPAN), Cobb wrote down the questions when they were asked so that he could address each part, Badnarik just played a tape and moved his lips. And it was the same stuff he tried to work into the "interview." That's why it seemsed off, he was forcing his square pegged answers into round holed questions. He did a much better job of pulling of improvisation at the debate though. If it wern't for their "few (major) disagreements" (i.e, Cobbs views were like Badnariks on the major disagreement issues) then I'd vote Cobb. A vote for Cobb shows the main parties we want socialism (not saying that he's extremely socialist or anything, just that it's his most noticable feature) whereas a vote for Badnarik shows we want freedom, to boil it down.

OK my friend I have to disagree with you. Badnarik was campaigning for many months before the convention. He had virtually nothing in the way of campaign contributions and was living out of his car and without income. At the convention when Gary Nolan threw his support behind Michael he said no one had worked harder than Michael. Take a look at his calendar and you can tell he's been very busy. As I understand it he's getting by on just 4 hours sleep. Even Slick Willie said he needed 6.

Michael is not as polished a speaker as David Cobb, who BTW was excellent in the debate. But do you want a polished speaker or someone who is devoted to the constitution?

[David S]

  I understand that he know.. well seemingly everything about the constitution (and expects others to too, ). What I'm saying is that I wouldn't feel safe, as such, going to the man's house for dinner.
  I think Peroutka is for taking away plenty of freedoms.
  Side thought: Is there any way that foriegners can help the LP in the US?
  Off topic: You blokes call us liberals in Europe right?

I have only briefly looked at Peroutka's platform - let me know about specifics!

Well, being British, I would not know what Europeans call you

Liberal in England means pro abortion, pro "gay rights" etc. and - illogically - the use of very illiberal means to achieve that state.

Educated people know that liberalism was hijacked and that classic liberalism is much more associated with libertarianism (so about 1% of the population know this).

I believe there are international libertarian organizations around.

Dubhdara.

The constitution party also supports the constitution, but they are firmly opposed to abortion. Their platfrom is more centered on religion.

A good site for comparing candidates is www.candidatemap.com

[David S]

Personally, I don't fault the CP for their anti-abortion stance. It's a gray issue and I agree with both sides to some extent.

There are other issues that I do disagree with them on though:

Michael Peroutka is against women in the military. Considering our military is strictly volunteer, I can find no logical reason to forbid them from fighting if they want to. Heck, ask yourself this - Who would you be more afraid of, a 200 pound man with a gun who wants your money or a 120 pound woman, armed or not, who thinks you stole her baby? I'd be frightened as hell of the woman, because she'd stop at nothing to get me.

They are also for keeping drugs illegal, they are strongly against pornagraphy, ect.

Basically, they are a party of Christian fundamentalists with extreme right economic tendencies. Nothing wrong with either of those, but I think much differently than them on social issues.

It is sad to see the disparity between some libertarians and strong Christians, we find some libertarians who do not comprehend that morality strengthens a society *but* on the other hand we find Christians who do not comprehend that most moral things must be accepted and never imposed on others.

I believe these views *are* reconcilable; a libertarian federal government that allows sub-covenantal societies (states, counties, etc.) whereby people by mutual compact choose the "higher laws" by which they will be governed.

This exists in a pale, weak form in the US when you have situations where some states allow gambling and others do not. The same can be applied to pornography, women serving in the military, etc..

We must understand freedom. Let me say I am deeply opposed to women serving in the military, but for all my feeling I cannot find a principle that would excuse the use of force in stopping such.

People like to associate with like-minded people, they have a right (I feel) to have their children grow up in the environment of their choosing. By forming these societies, contracted into by voluntary agreement when of age, liberty is preserved by vouchsafing the lawful actions of all.

Dubhdara.

As far as religion goes I think what you are suggesting is what the founders envisioned. In the 1st amendment it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restricting the free excercise thereof..." It doe not say anything about states, although I think subsequent supreme court decisions have said it applies to states as well.
Its always been interesting to me that in the 1st amendment the constitution prevents congress from making laws restricting religion or free speech, but in the second amendment it says "...the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed." In that case it means no one can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not just congress. I don't think this is an accident. The founders chose their words carefully.