Good Article on Badnarik (cleaned up)

[Werewolf]

The last time I read the LP platform was a couple of years ago. I honestly don't remember idiotic and impractical garbage like this being in it:

From the LP Platform:
Solutions: Specifically, we: a.) support the right of any individual to challenge the payment of taxes on moral, religious, legal or constitutional grounds; b.) oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes; c.) support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes; d.) support the repeal of all taxation; and e.) support a declaration of unconditional amnesty for all those individuals who have been convicted of, or who now stand accused of, tax resistance. We oppose as involuntary servitude any legal requirements forcing employers or business owners to serve as tax collectors for federal, state, or local tax agencies. We oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions or credits in the spurious name of "fairness," "simplicity," or alleged "neutrality to the free market."

Without taxes government can't function. Without government you have anarchy and with anarchy the guys with the biggest sticks or most money make the rules.

Should government's ability to collect and assess taxes be limited? I think so. How that can be accomplished will have to be left to better minds than mine. But the above LP stand is sheer nonsense.

I guess I am going to have to go and review the whole platform again. Maybe I'm not as libertarian as I thought or maybe the last time I read the LP platform I was feeling a bit like an anarchist.

 

[duck hunt]

Just a guess.......

Maybe I'm not as libertarian as I thought or maybe the last time I read the LP platform I was feeling a bit like an anarchist.

....but I'm betting that, if you consider a vital part of the part's platform "idiotic and impractical garbage," then probably, no. You're not a libertarian.

 

[Jay Kominek]

Without taxes government can't function.

Certainly without taxes, the government can't waste your money on a lot of stuff you don't need.
http://www.libertarianthought.com/articles/taxless.html

(Personally, I would have no problem continuing income taxes for corporations. After all, they're getting special benefits from the state (existance in perpetuity, and limited liability for corporate officers), but other L's don't like even that.)

 

[Werewolf]

http://www.libertarianthought.com/articles/taxless.html

More nonsense...
Only topic 1 makes any sense at all - in other words pay for services rendered might actually work for some of the services government provides but certainly not all.

The idea of permits has merit - if one wants to pay for the right just to get out of bed in the morning because that's where financing government by permit would lead.

The problem of financing a military only to be used in defense is not addressed at all. Having folks pay for it on a voluntary basis is inane (uhhh - excuse me Mr. Citizen but the army successfully repelled an invasion. We lost 200,000 men and 80 billion dollars worth of equipment. Your share to pay for the successfull defense is $126,453.25 - pay up - sorry but that scenario just has me ROFLMFAO). Pay for service rendered if invaded - you'd be a day late and a dollar short if that was to be the case. And where would the country get the money to finance the military while a war was happening or pay for military related research (not much demand for tank designers if the military doesn't have money to buy tanks with).

And anyone who believes that government could be financed by donations is living in a fantasy land with pink skies and blue bunnies running around freely handing out candy to kids and happiness to everyone else. Yeah! Riiiiiiiiight...

To the original poster I offer thanks. My eyes have been opened. Libertarians are nut jobs living in a fantasy world even more inane than that of the hard core bleeding heart liberals.

Maybe the Constitution Party has something to offer. Do they have a platform anchored in the real world? I think I'll go check them out.

 

[Jay Kominek]

Your attitude isn't really conducive to anything. But you already realize that.

More nonsense... ...And anyone who believes that government could be financed by donations...

I left out your ad hominem attack. You might consider simply editing it out of your post.
People donate to all sorts of things. People donate so that web comic arists can quit their day jobs and so that they can get information on buggering little boys.
Hell, the media corporations would be all over themselves to donate to the government, just so they could maintain the ongoing soap opera that is politics.

 

[WonderNine]

(uhhh - excuse me Mr. Citizen but the army successfully repelled an invasion. We lost 200,000 men and 80 billion dollars worth of equipment. Your share to pay for the successfull defense is $126,453.25 - pay up - sorry but that scenario just has me ROFLMFAO).

Actually it would be more like $300 per person.

To the original poster I offer thanks. My eyes have been opened. Libertarians are nut jobs living in a fantasy world even more inane than that of the hard core bleeding heart liberals.

Why do you say that?

 

[Werewolf]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the original poster I offer thanks. My eyes have been opened. Libertarians are nut jobs living in a fantasy world even more inane than that of the hard core bleeding heart liberals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why do you say that?

Because I took the time to actually read the LP platform instead of just skim it.

The platform the Libs stand for is pretty much impossible to implement in the real world with real people, real countries and real problems.

The issue of taxation is just one example.

No government could exist if financed like the LP's want to do it. Any 3rd world country with a 2 bit 3rd rate army could roll in and take it over in half a hearbeat.

Of course they're RKBA policy being as it is guerilla warfare would be a problem for the invader but not for long since LP's believe strongly in open borders and would just consider the invading army one of the consequences. Then of course all the spaced out doped up druggies in the LP world of do whatever you want drugs are all OK probably wouldn't notice anyway.

 

[Jay Kominek]

Then of course all the spaced out doped up druggies in the LP world of do whatever you want drugs are all OK probably wouldn't notice anyway.

I've never even met a Libertarian who did or wanted to use drugs, though I've heard of some who wanted to for medical purposes.
Again, though, you're engaging in this totally unnecessary ad hominem. Libertarians have no problem with you believeing whatever you like, but you've got to rattle off as many insults towards us as you can manage?

I hope you'll go back and inform anyone you might've ever mentioned your "Libertarian" leanings to that you didn't know what you were talking about. I'd prefer not be associated with anyone who can't manage to discuss politics without name calling.

 

[atek3]

I've never even met a Libertarian who did or wanted to use drugs, though I've heard of some who wanted to for medical purposes.

Hah, where do you live, Salt Lake City? In the real world, Democrats do drugs, Libertarians do drugs, and yes, even Repugnicans do drugs. That said, no one on the high road does drugs.

atek3

 

[tyme]

We already have lunatics in the whitehouse. At least Badnarik will accomplish something.

Just a minor note: if you're so worried about Badnarik being a lunatic, vote LP and then pressure your congresspeople to impeach him. You can't get much better than Campagna.

http://www.lpia.org/election/campagna.php

His bio says he speaks 6 languages (and is an interpreter in at least some of them), both he and his wife have law degrees, and he has a degree in theology of all things.

 

[Chris Rhines]

On the topic of voluntary government funding:

It is a truism of human society that a need on your part doesn't create an obligation on my part, even if your need is a mortal one. The crack fiend panhandling outside my office may really need my spare change to ward off starvation (or withdrawl), but that doesn't mean that he can force me to give it to him. Quite the contrary - were he to try to force me to give him my money, I would be quite justified in using force to make him stop.

Now expand that view to apply to governments. The government may really need my cash. That doesn't give them the moral authority to take it by force. The government can ask for money, and they can try to convince people to give it to them. Anything beyond that is theft, plain and simple.

From a practical standpoint, voulntary government funding has another advantage - it acts as a running referendum on the government itself. If the gov't finds fewer and fewer people willing to pony up the cash for its day-to-day operations, maybe it should consider why people are reluctant to pay...

- Chris

 

[Justin]

Without government you have anarchy and with anarchy the guys with the biggest sticks or most money make the rules.

So henceforth I should presume that we are indeed living in a state of anarchy?

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

VaniB:

Oh God.... are you still at it? Everytime I turn around, your trying to jam this crap down our throats! Have you tried the Brady web site? Maybe you could convert some Democrat votes away from Kerry to your Badnick no-where-man, and do us some good while your at it.

Luke. Your welcome to keep opening these Libertarian Advertisement Threads, and I'll just keep posting my opposing view. I consider your agenda a threat to the well being of my immediate gun rights, being we may not be able to afford losing a few hundred votes to fringe candidates.

It's your gun rights guys. We might as well have Kerry threads pop up in this forum. At least it would be honest and forthright in knowing who our adversary is.

I think that if you would go back and actually read the article I posted you'd see it was extremely critical of Badnarik and the Libertarian Party.

If you would then go on and actually read my comments, like this one for example:"Opposed to driver's licensing? Zip Codes are a Federal Intrusion? Badnarik is certifiably nuts" you'd see that I was very critical of Badnarik as well. It was the first line of my first post, just before the article started.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Werewolf:

Ummmm....
You're not doing the libertarian party any good by posting that article.

Yes I know. That's the whole point of posting it. I am not a supporter of, or a member of, the Libertarian Party. I posted the article because it is critical of the LP, and I wanted to get the LP folks' reaction to it.

So far, I am impressed with how the LP folks will support Badnarik since they believe he is refusing to obey a law he believes is unjust.

 

[priv8ter]

Well...

I'm not sure I support Badnarik breaking laws that he considers unjust. In fact, I'm not even sure I support Badnarik. It's just that whenever I try to say I support Bush, either my throat dries out, or I break out in maniacal laughter. Someone who has said he will sign the AWB if it crosses his desk, is not a friend, unless you embrace the 'Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend' philosophy. And we saw how good that worked with the Russians in WWII.



I mean, I think drugs should be legal. But, at this time they are not, so until the gets changed, I still think people that are in posession of these illegal substances should be arrested.

It's kind of the same reason that, while I feel open-carry is okay, you won't see me running around with a 1911 on my hip(whether or not open carry is legal in Washington is being discussed by people FAR more legally gifted than myself).

Now, someday, if I am an old man, with nothing to lose, may I openly flaunt an unjust law? Yes...but I will be willing to deal with the consequences of my illegal action.

greg

 

[tyme]

So far, I am impressed with how the LP folks will support Badnarik since they believe he is refusing to obey a law he believes is unjust.

Explain to me why I should vote for an ex-drug-addict, who was spoiled rotten and given a free ride in society due to his father and whose literacy is questionable at best, rather than vote for a radical constitutional originalist who doesn't have a DL and cheats on his taxes. (The tax code is, of course, one of the most questionable pieces of legislation in existence even if you believe it's constitutional.)

Or explain why I should vote for a flaming liberal, who has missed 80% of his senate votes this year and who also has things easy due to someone else's money, rather than vote for the aforementioned radical constitutional originalist. Convince me that this Democratic candidate isn't a flaming hypocrite. Convince me that Kerry wouldn't do or say anything to get elected. He doesn't seem to care about performing the job the we're paying him to do. How is he even remotely trustworthy?

I don't trust Bush and I don't trust Kerry, and the majority of policies and laws supported by both are pure garbage (not to mention unconstitutional). It's that simple. I could care less about a few non-violent, victimless crimes, federal or not, particularly when the individual in question is not likely to be indicted much less convicted by late January.

 

[Jac]

Do any of the Republicans on this board, after serious consideration, truly believe that another 4 years of George W. Bush will be a boon to you -- or your right to keep and bear arms?!?

If GWB is such a pro-gun president, how many executive orders has he issued to disban the ATF or relax federal gun laws? How many full pardons has he granted to American citizens imprisoned on unConstitutional, firearms-related charges?

To vote for Bush because he's the "lesser of two evils, and he'd win anyway" is one thing. I seriously disagree with it and think that "wasted vote" bullcrap has contributed to the demise of the USA, but you have a right to be dumb.

However, to vote for Bush because you believe his bullsh*t about being pro-gun... that's the worst kind of boot-licking, slave behavior. Far as I'm concerned, you get what you deserve.

If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. --Samuel Adams

I know you can get more ants with honey, but I needed to rant.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

tyme:

Explain to me why I should vote for a radical Christian ex-drug-addict, who was spoiled rotten and given a free ride in society due to his father and whose literacy is questionable at best...

Or explain why I should vote for a flaming liberal, who has missed 80% of his senate votes this year and who also has things easy due to someone else's money...

If your post is directed at me, my answer is: Why should I explain these points? I am not voting for Kerry or Bush. If The Constitution Party doesn't make it onto the VA ballot I'm most likely not voting for POTUS.

I don't trust Bush and I don't trust Kerry...

I am in agreement. I don't trust them either. Although I trust Bush far more than Kerry.

 

[liliysdad]

This man ought to be in prison, not in a presidential race....good thing he isnt a serious candidate.

 

[Art Eatman]

Jac, you don't have to "be" a Republican to vote for Bush. You don't have to "be" a Libertarian to believe in many libertarian ideas, either.

If Kerry is elected, I believe he would promote anti-gun legislation. If Bush is elected, he won't be an activist about anti-gun laws.

If Kerry is elected, there won't be a pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment Attorney General.

Apologies for the highjack...

Art

 

[Jac]

If Bush is elected, he won't be an activist about anti-gun laws.

The Bush administration said it supports renewing the federal assault-weapons ban, despite a push by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to let it expire.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. --Salt Lake Tribune, April 2004

********
Bush opposed repeal of the 1994 assault weapon ban --L.A. Times, May 1999

********
Regarding guns, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore would, if elected president:
* Support the current ban on assault weapons.
* Ban imports of high-capacity ammunition clips.
* Raise the minimum age for possessing a handgun from 18 to 21.
* Require that trigger locks be sold with handguns. --AP, April 2000

********
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced legislation yesterday to reauthorize the ban on scores of semi-automatic firearms.

As a result, reporters asked White House spokesman Ari Fleischer for the President's position. Fleischer said, "Often, the president will agree... with the National Rifle Association. On this issue, he does not." --GOA, May 2003

Bush may not be an "activist" for gun laws, but he's made it pretty clear that he is not a pro gun-rights president.

 

[rock jock]

At least Badnarik will accomplish something.

Yes, he certainly will. He will bring the U.S. economy to its knees, compromise our security, and end up being impeached because of his crazy ideas. In the end, the state of U.S. will have taken a sharp turn downward.

 

[duck hunt]

Yes, he certainly will. He will bring the U.S. economy to its knees, compromise our security, and end up being impeached because of his crazy ideas. In the end, the state of U.S. will have taken a sharp turn downward.

or:

the economy will thrive when Americans are allowed to keep their money instead of giving it to Uncle Sam

the people formerly crippled by the welfare state will learn self-sufficiency and gain dignity

free market education will create competition where formerly a monopoly enabled teachers not to teach, and....

we'll save billions of dollars on prisons when we quit locking people up for using and selling drugs.

Look, maybe it *is* a pipe dream. I don't think anyone is kidding themselves that Badnarik will win. Still, he stands for what I stand for, and he's the only one running who does.

 

[Boats]

That book posted at the top of the thread should be titled Notes From the Flea Circus as it's about that relevant to current events in America. Maybe if Badnarik avoids prison and pulls down greater than one percent of the vote, 2008's could be called News From the Ant Farm.

 

[braindead0]

Failing to file income tax returns is only a crime if you make any income subject to the income tax. Seems people on this thread are assuming Badnarik makes taxable income.