For the past few weeks I have been contemplating the upcoming election and considering going for that 3rd party vote once again. President Bush seems hell bent on taking away our liberties in the name of security; apparently he disagrees with Benjamin Franklin1. Mr. Kerry’s answers to some questions seem weak, especially on science related topic and space exploration; in some cases I think he is giving a “no” answer just to avoid the question. If I were someone who thought I should simply pick the “lesser of two evils” I guess I would have to vote for Kerry. My liberties are just too important to me (however, I’m not sure Kerry will actually return our lost liberties) to continue supporting President Bush. But I no longer believe in simply picking the “lesser of two evils”; don’t you still get evil? And all of this is what leaves me considering a 3rd Party candidate.
So, today I came across an interview with the Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik on SlashDot. I have a bit of a libertarian view on some topics, like gun control and constitutional rights, so I thought it would be worth reading. The readers of SlashDot posed some good questions, and this time a politician really answered them without finding a way to avoid the topics. Below is my commentary on each of the questions asked. In an effort to be concise I am not going to repeat the questions, so please follow along in the interview as you read.
Question #1: regarding the 3rd party candidates - Mr. Badnarik hit this one right on the mark. The current political ballot system really cripples the ability of 3rd party candidates to be serious contenders. And I think we all suffer greatly from this. We end up stuck with the choice of keeping the status quo or keeping the status qou. That’s no choice. However, Mr. Badnarik does suggest some interesting alternative ideas for voting.
Question #2: regarding social impact of radical changes - Mr. Badnarik certainly does suggest some radical changes. So radical in fact that I believe they are what would keep him from winning even if 3rd party candidates got a better shot. For instance, Mr Badnarik would like to bring an end to the Federal Reserve being the only institution capable of issuing currency. What?!?!?!? I’m no economist but this sounds like it would cause such a disruption to things that it could bring parts of our economy to a screaming hault. And I’m betting many other people would think the same thing. This kind of radicalism won’t win you the presidential seat, and you need to win before you can even think about effecting this kind of change. I’d leave this one off the platform for now Mr. Badnarik.
On the other hand, some radical changes might get the support of the public; like bringing our troops home. Mr. Badnarick suggests rather quick pullout of our troops abroad, and I’m sure that would please many people. However, I’m not sure the realities of an existing war would allow him the time tables he proposes.
Question #3: regarding the electoral college - I’m with Mr. Badnarick on this one. I do not believe that doing away with the electoral college will make things better. Popular vote is not the way to go as it does not give true representation to each of the states of the nation. However, I would be in favor of New York State eveluating how it choses electors.
Question #4: the “wasted” vote idea - This one goes back to my comments above regarding the “lesser of two evils.” ‘Nuff said.
Question #5: ideology in politics - I don’t have much to comment on here. I think everyone has their own ideology when it comes to politics, and it isn’t going to just go away.
Question #6: “Free Trade” - Wow! Making individuals responsible for the actions of the organizations they are affiliated with. What a concept! But unfortunatelly, most share holders rarely have any real say in what the companies do. I would put more emphasis on those truely running the organizations.
Question #7: Intellectual Property - This is a subject near and dear to my heart. Mr. Badnarick’s final say on the matter is thus:
“I can’t give you a more substantive answer about intellectual property. It’s an issue that I’ve thought about a lot, but the only conclusion I’ve come to is that freedom will out — and that we’ll know what that freedom looks like when the smoke clears.”
What?!?!?!? Is he out of his mind? He’s giving the old the market will take care of this line? I think not! Sorry Mr. Badnarick, but I’m going to have to side with Lawrence Lessig on this one. It will not take care of itself. It is our responsibility, each and every person effected, to get involved with the policy making on intellectual property. Failure on our part to help in this decision making process could lead to an market environment that is detrimental to the consumer or business. Waiting for the “smoke to clear” is an irresponsible response, especially from a potential presidential candidate. The intellectual property law of this country, in the form of copyright, trademark and patents, was setup by our founding fathers as a careful balancing act. Too far to the consumer side and nobody has incentive to create new works, but go too far to the business side and the consumer has no “fair use” rights. This balance must be maintained through contitutional law. Mr. Badnarick, you really need to re-think your position on this if you intend to attract tech savvy voters like myself.
Question #8: PATRIOT Act and the INDUCE Act - All in favor of getting rid of these pieces of junk raise your hands. Mr. Badnarick, your points on this legislation are solid.
Question #9: rights in an ownership society - The libertarians think that everything should be owned? This was a new one to me. I guess I never fully understood this point of libertarian philosophy. I would have thought they would have taken a position that favored the Commons more. This particular quote just doesn’t appeal to me:
“Even in a libertarian society where all property is privately owned…”
So, what your saying Mr. Badnarick is that there should no public Commons at all? I do not like the idea of public parks becoming privately owned. That could lead to discrimination of who can use those lands. I already hate the fact that radio spectrum is allocated by means of ownership, especially when there is technology2 available that could create a Commons for parts of the radio spectrum. The people of this nation benefit greatly when certain items are not owned, but held in a Commons.
Question #10: PATRIOT Act - see the mention of this above. The SlashDot editors should have caught this duplication in the original questions.
Question #11: Where are we headed? - Interesting theory regarding what happens approximately every 70 years. Not sure how it stands up to the test if compared with a time period longer than US history though.
Question #12: Iraq and other dictatorships - I do appreciate Mr. Badnarick’s stance here, but I’m not sure if it is always so easy to tell if someone or something is a “clear and present danger”. As an example take a look at the history of Adolf Hitler; looks like nobody recognized the “clear and present danger” of that guy right away. All the negotiating with Hitler that went on before WWII sounds like some of the same crap we heard from other nations before the Iraq war. There is no way to tell if things would have gotten worse or better if we left Saddam alone. It was a judgement call, plain and simple and even I support it. The President’s real mistake appears to have been the lack of a concrete exit strategy. Mr. Badnarick seems to contradict the rest of his answer with this quote: “If you or I want to unseat or kill a thug like Saddam Hussein, we’re morally free to do so. He’s a tyrant and a murderer. We’d only be acting on behalf of his victims.” Also, “We don’t have a right to kill the innocent.” Morally true, but show me how you unseat a thug/dictator without at least some innocent people getting hurt. Try convincing me that innocent people didn’t get hurt during our own revolutionary war. Yeah, right. But still, without the Revolutionary War would we be a free people today? Most people would say the Revolutionary War was justified, even though innocent people were surely hurt.
Question #13: Nuclear proliferation - I agree. The real danger is terrorists getting hold of the proper materials. Anybody who can read can figure out how to make a nuclear weapon. And no, I’m not sure Iran would sell it to them. If it was traced back to Iran (and it probably would be) they would get it back 10 times over, and they know it. In my opinion Iran would use it strictly as a deterrent. So would North Korea.
Question #14: The Environment - I’ll have to read his papers on the subject later, let’s just hope he’s not an environmental nut.
Question #15: Privatizing Education - I don’t agree with this 100%. I think there is still a place for public education. I would support letting parents spend there tax dollars on the school of their choice though. The public schools might improve if they have to compete with private ones.
Question #16: position on outsourcing/immigration - He’s right about outsourcing not going away through legislation alone. Better to find a way to make our companies more competitive, or like Mr. Badnarick suggests, find new products/services that 3rd world countries can’t do right now. The world is a much closer place than it was at the turn of the century and you can no longer escape the global economy; it is here to stay. As for immigration, I think you do have to have limits on the number of people coming in. If you don’t you will tax the community resources that support the population.
Well, that’s my response to some of Mr. Badnarick’s answers. Clearly I do not agree with all of his points, but at least he is straight forward with his answers. I’m still going to have to think hard about who to support in the coming election.
Notes:
1) “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin: Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
2) Spread Spectrum technology