Интервью с кандидатом в президенты США
Oct. 30th, 2004 02:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gr_sИнтервью с Баднариком. Переношу сюда, т.к. ссылка похожа на временную.
Некоторые моменты:
= We recognize there’s a problem in education and that problem stems basically from government control. In 1953 American students were No. 1 in math and science; that was the year that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare began taking control of schools. Last year in 2003 we just suffered 50 years of government control. We now spend over 10 times as much per student and American students are coming out of schools 29th in math and science. So even if the Department of Education was constitutional—and it clearly is not—we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient.
= We generated $5 billion in contributions to the city of New York within one month of September 11. There was no IRS agent there telling you what your fair share was...
= If Social Security is such a great thing, why is it our members of Congress aren’t on Social Security? Why do the members of Congress have a very special retirement plan where they work for the government for four years and they get 100 percent of their final pay for the rest of their lives?
On November 2nd many young adult Americans will go to the polls to vote for their next President. Since the launch of JIVE Magazine's Political Forum, many debates and topics that affect the average collegiate visitor, the average video gamer, the average electronic music lover, or perhaps just the average 18 to 25-year-old, have turned up many questions on issues that continue to make people ponder who they will cast their vote for. Recently, JIVE Magazine had a rare opportunity to speak with the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, on issues that affect our culture as a whole, and to discuss just how important the 18- to 25-year-old voter really is in this election.
JIVE: We recently read a New York Times article about the “Dot Net” age group of 18- to 25-year-olds. It has become more apparent that this demographic is now a serious consideration as an important voting group. We’d like an opinion on how important you feel these so-called “Dot Netters” can be in this election.
Michael Badnarik: I think they are important, especially because the Democrats and Republicans are planning to restore the draft with House Resolution 162 in the House of Representatives. There’s a similar bill in the Senate. It is a plan to solicit our young people and drag them unwilling into the military, although I believe John Kerry was calling it “national service” at the time. Friends of mine from California have witnessed the selective service offices being staffed up and while I was in New York City, during the Republican National Convention, and I saw a commercial on TV which was pure propaganda announcing how easy it was for young people to sign up for selective service over the Internet. There are a lot of indications that the Democrats and Republicans are both planning to restore the draft including a stop-loss measure by the Army. A stop-loss measure is basically when you are scheduled to leave the Army after your tour of service; they deny you that opportunity. And that’s not just for the people who are in Iraq; it is for the military in general. So this year’s election could literally be a matter of life and death for some young people.
JIVE: How do you propose to get that information out to this demographic? What kind of strategies do you have?
Badnarik: Well, one of the things we’ve been doing is visiting as many colleges as possible. Also, my vice presidential candidate, Richard Campagna, is a college professor and a lawyer from Iowa City. He has been focusing a high percentage of his time at the universities and we have found that the university students are very receptive to the Libertarian message. One of the things I do early on in a presentation is ask how many people in the audience currently live at home with their mom and dad. Depending on the age bracket, some significant percentage is still semi-dependant. The next question is how many people plan to be living at home with Mom and Dad five years from now. We never have any hands go up. Everybody obviously is planning to move away from Mom and Dad, and the question is, why? Why would you move from a three- or four-bedroom home into a small studio apartment living just above the poverty level? The answer is fairly intuitive: It’s for the sake of liberty. They love their parents but at that age group, it is time for them to grow up, move out, and make their own decisions in life. So my final question is, typically, if you won’t allow Mom and Dad to make decisions for you, why on earth would you let the government make decisions for you? Does the government love you more than Mom and Dad? Does the government know you better than Mom and Dad? Well, clearly it doesn’t. In any decision about your life, either you can make the decision or the government can make the decision for you. Libertarians are overwhelmingly in favor of you making your own decision. We just expect you to handle all the consequences of your decision. So everything Libertarians espouse is basically individual rights and personal responsibility.
JIVE: That leads me to our next question. And it’s going to actually get very specific on one issue that we cover at JIVE Magazine. At JIVE, we have a huge niche market readership involving electronic music. Back in the old days of JIVE Magazine we covered raves and the club scene. And we actually did a feature on one of the most notable rave promoters, Donnie Estopinal, who is also known as “Disco Donnie." He was one of the first rave promoters to be prosecuted under the government crack-house laws. Just as a point of interest for some nightlife events and music we cover at JIVE, what would a Libertarian Party position be on the use of crack-house laws and rulings that have affected and effectively closed down not only raves but super clubs like Twilo in New York City and across the nation? What do you think about the government intervention and enforcement of such laws? For example, in Atlanta, recently—and this is on a lower municipality level—city rulings have effectively closed down a good deal of the club scene in Atlanta because clubs have to be closed at 2 a.m. now, where before they could stay open until at least 4 a.m. DJs, bartenders, dancers, light and sound guys, club owners, etc., have had to scramble to find an entirely new way to make a living. Where would the Libertarian Party stand on issues like this, where the government, even at the city level, comes in and affects an entire entertainment industry and turns it around?
Badnarik: Well it’s very simple. We believe in individual rights and personal responsibility. To have the government come in and just mandate that a club owner is suddenly going to be responsible for the actions of anyone that comes into their club is absolutely ludicrous. Obviously for liability reasons the club owners will shut down, but this is merely a ploy that the government uses to induce someone else to be the bad guy and close the clubs down without having to actually do it themselves. In a Libertarian society business owners can offer whatever goods and services they want. People can participate and choose to participate, but that does not mean that the Libertarian platform authorizes or endorses the initiation of force. If you’re going to go to place like that you’re welcome to have fun but you’re responsible for yourself. But if five or six individuals start to cause a fistfight, or there is violence, those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted for hurting people and putting other people in danger. Unfortunately, the government's tendency of making your decisions for you and making someone else responsible for things they are unable to control is ludicrous, immoral, and is totally un-American.
JIVE: What is the Libertarian platform on educational aid and funding for college students—funding such as school loans and grants? And what are the alternatives proposed?
Badnarik: Well, basically the Libertarian platform is to protect private property. We felt everyone has the right to their own property. You do not have a right to your neighbor’s property, however. So if you were to come in to my house and take a hundred dollars out of your wallet to use it for your education, that would be theft. If you have the government come into my house and take a hundred dollars to give it to you for your education, that’s government-assisted theft. The Libertarian Party is opposed to both kinds of theft. We recognize there’s a problem in education and that problem stems basically from government control. In 1953 American students were No. 1 in math and science; that was the year that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare began taking control of schools. Last year in 2003 we just suffered 50 years of government control. We now spend over 10 times as much per student and American students are coming out of schools 29th in math and science. So even if the Department of Education was constitutional—and it clearly is not—we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient.
The Libertarian philosophy proposes that anytime you want to increase the quality of the service and decrease the cost of that same service, you need to privatize and go to the free market. Our philosophy would allow teachers to teach whatever they want, allow parents to send their children to whatever school they want, and the cost of education is going to come down so just about everyone would be able afford it. But for the few people who still are not able to afford education, let me point out that even with the economy as bad as it is, there are organizations that provide scholarships and financial assistance. So if we get rid of the IRS and allow the economy to grow, Americans will have far more money to be more generous with. Nobody should go without a good education, but as Libertarians, we are not willing to steal someone else’s money just to help you with your schooling.
JIVE: We also cover quite a bit of video games. It’s the No. 1 recreation for 18- to 25-year-old males, especially, so it’s a huge part of our magazine’s demographic interest. What would be a Libertarian position on the topics of video game censorship of violence?
Badnarik: Well, you know, pornography is in the eye of the beholder. It is not the government’s job to decide what you can and cannot see. Once again, the Libertarian platform is based on personal responsibility. If you want to play computer games that show violence, that’s fine, as long as it remains in virtual reality. As soon as your violence becomes real, then the Libertarians will fall on you like a ton of bricks. You are not allowed to initiate violence against anybody. We are strong supporters of the Second Amendment, so if someone starts to initiate violence towards you, you are perfectly justified in using whatever force is necessary to keep yourself alive.
JIVE: Along the same line, what about music censorship? Do you feel it’s the government’s job to put warning labels on music and video games, or to put ratings that refuse people entry into movie theaters?
Badnarik: No, certainly not. The only valid purpose of the government created by our Constitution is to protect your life, your liberty, and your property. Anytime the government is doing more than that they are usurping authority they have not been granted. It is not the government’s job to do things that are in your best interest. First of all, the government has no idea what is in your best interest; only you know what is in your best interest.
For example, when you give the government the power to do things in your best interest, then, theoretically, the government could tear down Wendy’s and McDonald’s because cholesterol is not in your best interest. We could instead set up juice bars where you could get carrot juice and celery sticks and maybe some of that delicious tofu, because you know, that’s in your best interest and the government is only looking out for you.
Exercise is also in your best interest. Can the government wake you up at 5:30 in the morning and have you doing jumping jacks and sit-ups on the curb? I mean, exercise is in your best interest ... or as an American, with independent thought and the ability to make your own decisions, do you feel qualified to go out for a cup of coffee and a couple of Krispy Kreme donuts whenever you want?
JIVE: Let me tell you about our political forum at JIVE. I pulled some questions out from a few of the topics and debates. It seems like the majority of our readers tend to be liberal Democrats, or they’re not quite sure what they are. Either way, the majority of our members are liberal and pretty much side with the Democratic Party’s platforms. And by "liberal" I mean they are usually concerned that, in general, society is not going to be naturally philanthropistic and are not going to be as self-governing or as careful if it weren’t for government interaction. Their concern is that we would end up being an uncivilized society within a Libertarian Party construct and even go far as to deem it utopian and too philosophical. What is your response to this counter point? How do you see our society behaving while governing itself?
Badnarik: First of all, it’s a contradictory statement. These young people are hoping to move out of mom and dad’s house so they can make their own decisions and then they are countering that other people are not going to behave so they want the government to come in and what, replace their parents? You really can’t have it both ways. Either you’re intelligent and independent and can make your own decisions or you’re not independent and you want the government to make everybody’s decisions for them.
The idea that Americans are not going to be generous enough is completely misguided and uninformed. The American culture is the most generous culture on the face of the earth. We generated $5 billion in contributions to the city of New York within one month of September 11. There was no IRS agent there telling you what your fair share was. People quit their jobs and moved to New York so they could help sift through the rubble, and people wrote huge checks and contributed $5 billion in one month to the city of New York. Remember that this is at a time when our economy is not doing very well. So anybody that tells me that Americans are not going to be caring or generous without government force is not paying attention to what history has shown us. There’s a quote presumably attributed to Winston Churchill—I don’t know if it’s an accurate quote or if it’s just an urban legend—but presumably Churchill said, "If you are 20 years old and you are not a socialist, you have no heart; but if you are 40 years old and you are still a socialist, you have no brain."
All these socialist programs have to be paid for by somebody. The government isn’t making the money; the government is taking the money out of the people who make it. So, when you’re 20 years old and you’re working delivering pizzas or delivering papers [and] you’re really not making enough money for the government to get a lot of taxes out of you, and you know, it just seems like somebody should be paying for all these things because we all want the world to be nice and happy. But when you’re 40 years old and you finally get your office job and you’re wearing a suit and tie to work, all of a sudden you realize the government is taking 35 percent of the money that you’ve worked so hard for and giving it to people who do nothing but sit on the couch, watch TV, and procreate. Welfare is theft; the idea of taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don't is redistribution of wealth. That is the basis of socialism. It’s the basis of communism. They are both apathetical to the Constitution. So you can either live in the United States or live in a communist regime. You can’t have it both ways.
JIVE: I have another question from one young lady who posts in our forums. She is a college studen in her early twenties and she asks the following question:
“I just want to throw out a question to the Libertarians as to their feelings on communism, because what you’ve seemed to have posited is the final, and never yet implemented step of communism, the eradication of all government because you believe that people have the intrinsic ability to take care of one another if we only remove government from their lives. This seems utopian to me. There are people in every strata of society who even with laws in place take advantage and exploit the people around them. For this reason we have set up governments throughout time. Humans abhor anarchy, even to the point that they would preserve systems that oppress them for fear of facing what would happen without a system at all.”
Badnarik: To say that Libertarians are anarchists is to mislabel us. If you live in a log cabin you require fire in order to survive. In fact, you use it to heat the home, cook your food. Fire is so important you actually have a special place for the fire: It’s called a fireplace. The Founding Fathers understood that government was important to our survival. It is so important that our Founding Fathers created a special place for government: It’s called the Constitution. Anytime the fire is in the fireplace, it is a good fire; anytime the fire gets outside the fireplace, it is a bad fire, and we automatically and reflexively stomp it out. Anytime the government is within the boundaries of the Constitution it is a good government. However, anytime the government gets outside the bounds of the constitution it is a bad government, and we should automatically and reflexively stomp it out. Libertarians are not anarchists. But [the Founders] wrote the Constitution as a limitation on the government. The reason [they] did that is the government always infringes on your rights when it is allowed to expand. Bill Clinton allowed the federal government to expand two and a half percent every year while he was in office. George Bush has allowed the federal government to expand seven and a half percent a year, and that doesn’t include the billions of dollars we’ve spent on the battle in Iraq.
JIVE: Now when you say "expansion," exactly what do you mean by that?
Badnarik: Additional federal agencies, more money, more people in Washington D.C. making decisions you should be making yourself. We literally cannot afford the government we have. Congress spends $700 billion more than they budget. Why would they even bother writing a budget? When you miss it by over half a trillion dollars. That’s not like, “Oh gosh, we had a few additional expenses"—that’s a half a trillion dollars that you just missed the boat on. I mean it’s very little wonder that the United States is multi-trillions of dollars in debt.
Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe in a minimal government and we believe in individual rights and personal responsibility. You can do anything you want as long as you’re not hurting somebody else. Again, the idea that there’s going to be people running rampant through the streets is bogus. The idea that we’re going to allow our elderly or disadvantaged people to starve is completely unfounded.
JIVE: There are people that have grandparents, for example, who are on Social Security and Medicare. They are concerned about these family members.
Badnarik: And they should be. That’s right. They have grandparents who are on Social Security, and nobody who is on Social Security feels secure, do they? They have to either choose between buying food this month or buying medication this month. But Social Security doesn’t give them enough money to do both.
John Kerry, during his acceptance speech, said that he loves old people and that he wanted to keep the elderly on Social Security. Well, if you love old people so much, why would you want to keep them on a system that is $7 trillion under-funded? Social Security is like the Titanic with the propellers up in the air: You don’t have to be a Navy admiral to know that this boat is going to sink. If Social Security is such a great thing, why is it our members of Congress aren’t on Social Security? Why do the members of Congress have a very special retirement plan where they work for the government for four years and they get 100 percent of their final pay for the rest of their lives? Oh, and by the way, where [else] can you find a job where you can vote yourself a raise? If Social Security were so damn great then the members of Congress would be on it. The solution is to do the same thing that the country of Chile did, which is to offer a privatized retirement system alongside the government system. We’re not taking away Social Security away from anybody who wants to stay on it. But if we give you a system that is much, much better and actually pays you money ... In two years 98 percent of the people of Chile moved from the government retirement system to the privatized system.
JIVE: So there is a model out there that could be followed to some degree?
Badnarik: Oh, there is absolutely a model out there; we’re not inventing anything new. I spoke at a college where a young woman was concerned about her grandmother, and she goes, “Where’s Grandma going to get money for her medication?” And I asked, “Well do you love your grandmother? Would you help her pay for that medication?” And she said, “Well, yes. But what about that rich guy up on the hill? The guy with the SUV in the driveway, the guy who has more money than he knows what to do with?” I am always fascinated by people who know when other people have more money than they know what to do with. I said, “Well how are you going to get that money? Are you going to take a gun and go up there and take that money by force?” And she goes, “Well, no, of course not! That would be theft!” And so I said, “So you’re expecting me to go up there and take that money by force so you can have the money without the danger and without the guilt?” I said, “How are you going to acquire that person’s money if they don’t want to give it to you and you’re not going to use force?” She said, “Well, gosh, I really don’t know.” I responded with, "Well, when you figure that one out, you come and talk to me. But until then, my job is to protect the property of Americans and I will protect your property from everybody else, but I’m going to protect everybody else’s property from you.”
JIVE: Well, to wrap this up, what would be the one thing you would want the 18- to 25-year-old person who is very much undecided about this year’s election and concerned about if they were to vote, for example, for a Libertarian candidate, that they would be throwing away the vote or they would be just ensuring George Bush stays in office, which many of them do not want to happen, for example. What’s the one thing that you would tell them that would help settle their thoughts?
Badnarik: Well, I would like to remind them that at their point in life they are now taking full responsibility for all their actions. They want to make their own decisions and I encourage them to do so. Instead of just following the crowd and doing what everybody else is doing, I encourage them to go to our Web site at www.lp.org and study the issues you see there. Actually decide which political party has your best interests at heart.
I strongly recommend that you vote for the candidate that will best represent you in Washington. Now I want to remind you that whether you vote for Bush or for Kerry, they’re both going to raise your taxes, they’re both going to pass unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act, they’re both going to restore the draft, and they’re both going to send people your age into additional fighting overseas. So if you want to make your own decisions and you think it’s your life to live and not the government’s to control, then you really only have one choice. If you vote for the lesser of two evils and your candidate wins, you still get evil. The only wasted vote is when you vote for a candidate that you don’t respect.
Некоторые моменты:
= We recognize there’s a problem in education and that problem stems basically from government control. In 1953 American students were No. 1 in math and science; that was the year that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare began taking control of schools. Last year in 2003 we just suffered 50 years of government control. We now spend over 10 times as much per student and American students are coming out of schools 29th in math and science. So even if the Department of Education was constitutional—and it clearly is not—we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient.
= We generated $5 billion in contributions to the city of New York within one month of September 11. There was no IRS agent there telling you what your fair share was...
= If Social Security is such a great thing, why is it our members of Congress aren’t on Social Security? Why do the members of Congress have a very special retirement plan where they work for the government for four years and they get 100 percent of their final pay for the rest of their lives?
On November 2nd many young adult Americans will go to the polls to vote for their next President. Since the launch of JIVE Magazine's Political Forum, many debates and topics that affect the average collegiate visitor, the average video gamer, the average electronic music lover, or perhaps just the average 18 to 25-year-old, have turned up many questions on issues that continue to make people ponder who they will cast their vote for. Recently, JIVE Magazine had a rare opportunity to speak with the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, on issues that affect our culture as a whole, and to discuss just how important the 18- to 25-year-old voter really is in this election.
JIVE: We recently read a New York Times article about the “Dot Net” age group of 18- to 25-year-olds. It has become more apparent that this demographic is now a serious consideration as an important voting group. We’d like an opinion on how important you feel these so-called “Dot Netters” can be in this election.
Michael Badnarik: I think they are important, especially because the Democrats and Republicans are planning to restore the draft with House Resolution 162 in the House of Representatives. There’s a similar bill in the Senate. It is a plan to solicit our young people and drag them unwilling into the military, although I believe John Kerry was calling it “national service” at the time. Friends of mine from California have witnessed the selective service offices being staffed up and while I was in New York City, during the Republican National Convention, and I saw a commercial on TV which was pure propaganda announcing how easy it was for young people to sign up for selective service over the Internet. There are a lot of indications that the Democrats and Republicans are both planning to restore the draft including a stop-loss measure by the Army. A stop-loss measure is basically when you are scheduled to leave the Army after your tour of service; they deny you that opportunity. And that’s not just for the people who are in Iraq; it is for the military in general. So this year’s election could literally be a matter of life and death for some young people.
JIVE: How do you propose to get that information out to this demographic? What kind of strategies do you have?
Badnarik: Well, one of the things we’ve been doing is visiting as many colleges as possible. Also, my vice presidential candidate, Richard Campagna, is a college professor and a lawyer from Iowa City. He has been focusing a high percentage of his time at the universities and we have found that the university students are very receptive to the Libertarian message. One of the things I do early on in a presentation is ask how many people in the audience currently live at home with their mom and dad. Depending on the age bracket, some significant percentage is still semi-dependant. The next question is how many people plan to be living at home with Mom and Dad five years from now. We never have any hands go up. Everybody obviously is planning to move away from Mom and Dad, and the question is, why? Why would you move from a three- or four-bedroom home into a small studio apartment living just above the poverty level? The answer is fairly intuitive: It’s for the sake of liberty. They love their parents but at that age group, it is time for them to grow up, move out, and make their own decisions in life. So my final question is, typically, if you won’t allow Mom and Dad to make decisions for you, why on earth would you let the government make decisions for you? Does the government love you more than Mom and Dad? Does the government know you better than Mom and Dad? Well, clearly it doesn’t. In any decision about your life, either you can make the decision or the government can make the decision for you. Libertarians are overwhelmingly in favor of you making your own decision. We just expect you to handle all the consequences of your decision. So everything Libertarians espouse is basically individual rights and personal responsibility.
JIVE: That leads me to our next question. And it’s going to actually get very specific on one issue that we cover at JIVE Magazine. At JIVE, we have a huge niche market readership involving electronic music. Back in the old days of JIVE Magazine we covered raves and the club scene. And we actually did a feature on one of the most notable rave promoters, Donnie Estopinal, who is also known as “Disco Donnie." He was one of the first rave promoters to be prosecuted under the government crack-house laws. Just as a point of interest for some nightlife events and music we cover at JIVE, what would a Libertarian Party position be on the use of crack-house laws and rulings that have affected and effectively closed down not only raves but super clubs like Twilo in New York City and across the nation? What do you think about the government intervention and enforcement of such laws? For example, in Atlanta, recently—and this is on a lower municipality level—city rulings have effectively closed down a good deal of the club scene in Atlanta because clubs have to be closed at 2 a.m. now, where before they could stay open until at least 4 a.m. DJs, bartenders, dancers, light and sound guys, club owners, etc., have had to scramble to find an entirely new way to make a living. Where would the Libertarian Party stand on issues like this, where the government, even at the city level, comes in and affects an entire entertainment industry and turns it around?
Badnarik: Well it’s very simple. We believe in individual rights and personal responsibility. To have the government come in and just mandate that a club owner is suddenly going to be responsible for the actions of anyone that comes into their club is absolutely ludicrous. Obviously for liability reasons the club owners will shut down, but this is merely a ploy that the government uses to induce someone else to be the bad guy and close the clubs down without having to actually do it themselves. In a Libertarian society business owners can offer whatever goods and services they want. People can participate and choose to participate, but that does not mean that the Libertarian platform authorizes or endorses the initiation of force. If you’re going to go to place like that you’re welcome to have fun but you’re responsible for yourself. But if five or six individuals start to cause a fistfight, or there is violence, those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted for hurting people and putting other people in danger. Unfortunately, the government's tendency of making your decisions for you and making someone else responsible for things they are unable to control is ludicrous, immoral, and is totally un-American.
JIVE: What is the Libertarian platform on educational aid and funding for college students—funding such as school loans and grants? And what are the alternatives proposed?
Badnarik: Well, basically the Libertarian platform is to protect private property. We felt everyone has the right to their own property. You do not have a right to your neighbor’s property, however. So if you were to come in to my house and take a hundred dollars out of your wallet to use it for your education, that would be theft. If you have the government come into my house and take a hundred dollars to give it to you for your education, that’s government-assisted theft. The Libertarian Party is opposed to both kinds of theft. We recognize there’s a problem in education and that problem stems basically from government control. In 1953 American students were No. 1 in math and science; that was the year that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare began taking control of schools. Last year in 2003 we just suffered 50 years of government control. We now spend over 10 times as much per student and American students are coming out of schools 29th in math and science. So even if the Department of Education was constitutional—and it clearly is not—we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient.
The Libertarian philosophy proposes that anytime you want to increase the quality of the service and decrease the cost of that same service, you need to privatize and go to the free market. Our philosophy would allow teachers to teach whatever they want, allow parents to send their children to whatever school they want, and the cost of education is going to come down so just about everyone would be able afford it. But for the few people who still are not able to afford education, let me point out that even with the economy as bad as it is, there are organizations that provide scholarships and financial assistance. So if we get rid of the IRS and allow the economy to grow, Americans will have far more money to be more generous with. Nobody should go without a good education, but as Libertarians, we are not willing to steal someone else’s money just to help you with your schooling.
JIVE: We also cover quite a bit of video games. It’s the No. 1 recreation for 18- to 25-year-old males, especially, so it’s a huge part of our magazine’s demographic interest. What would be a Libertarian position on the topics of video game censorship of violence?
Badnarik: Well, you know, pornography is in the eye of the beholder. It is not the government’s job to decide what you can and cannot see. Once again, the Libertarian platform is based on personal responsibility. If you want to play computer games that show violence, that’s fine, as long as it remains in virtual reality. As soon as your violence becomes real, then the Libertarians will fall on you like a ton of bricks. You are not allowed to initiate violence against anybody. We are strong supporters of the Second Amendment, so if someone starts to initiate violence towards you, you are perfectly justified in using whatever force is necessary to keep yourself alive.
JIVE: Along the same line, what about music censorship? Do you feel it’s the government’s job to put warning labels on music and video games, or to put ratings that refuse people entry into movie theaters?
Badnarik: No, certainly not. The only valid purpose of the government created by our Constitution is to protect your life, your liberty, and your property. Anytime the government is doing more than that they are usurping authority they have not been granted. It is not the government’s job to do things that are in your best interest. First of all, the government has no idea what is in your best interest; only you know what is in your best interest.
For example, when you give the government the power to do things in your best interest, then, theoretically, the government could tear down Wendy’s and McDonald’s because cholesterol is not in your best interest. We could instead set up juice bars where you could get carrot juice and celery sticks and maybe some of that delicious tofu, because you know, that’s in your best interest and the government is only looking out for you.
Exercise is also in your best interest. Can the government wake you up at 5:30 in the morning and have you doing jumping jacks and sit-ups on the curb? I mean, exercise is in your best interest ... or as an American, with independent thought and the ability to make your own decisions, do you feel qualified to go out for a cup of coffee and a couple of Krispy Kreme donuts whenever you want?
JIVE: Let me tell you about our political forum at JIVE. I pulled some questions out from a few of the topics and debates. It seems like the majority of our readers tend to be liberal Democrats, or they’re not quite sure what they are. Either way, the majority of our members are liberal and pretty much side with the Democratic Party’s platforms. And by "liberal" I mean they are usually concerned that, in general, society is not going to be naturally philanthropistic and are not going to be as self-governing or as careful if it weren’t for government interaction. Their concern is that we would end up being an uncivilized society within a Libertarian Party construct and even go far as to deem it utopian and too philosophical. What is your response to this counter point? How do you see our society behaving while governing itself?
Badnarik: First of all, it’s a contradictory statement. These young people are hoping to move out of mom and dad’s house so they can make their own decisions and then they are countering that other people are not going to behave so they want the government to come in and what, replace their parents? You really can’t have it both ways. Either you’re intelligent and independent and can make your own decisions or you’re not independent and you want the government to make everybody’s decisions for them.
The idea that Americans are not going to be generous enough is completely misguided and uninformed. The American culture is the most generous culture on the face of the earth. We generated $5 billion in contributions to the city of New York within one month of September 11. There was no IRS agent there telling you what your fair share was. People quit their jobs and moved to New York so they could help sift through the rubble, and people wrote huge checks and contributed $5 billion in one month to the city of New York. Remember that this is at a time when our economy is not doing very well. So anybody that tells me that Americans are not going to be caring or generous without government force is not paying attention to what history has shown us. There’s a quote presumably attributed to Winston Churchill—I don’t know if it’s an accurate quote or if it’s just an urban legend—but presumably Churchill said, "If you are 20 years old and you are not a socialist, you have no heart; but if you are 40 years old and you are still a socialist, you have no brain."
All these socialist programs have to be paid for by somebody. The government isn’t making the money; the government is taking the money out of the people who make it. So, when you’re 20 years old and you’re working delivering pizzas or delivering papers [and] you’re really not making enough money for the government to get a lot of taxes out of you, and you know, it just seems like somebody should be paying for all these things because we all want the world to be nice and happy. But when you’re 40 years old and you finally get your office job and you’re wearing a suit and tie to work, all of a sudden you realize the government is taking 35 percent of the money that you’ve worked so hard for and giving it to people who do nothing but sit on the couch, watch TV, and procreate. Welfare is theft; the idea of taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don't is redistribution of wealth. That is the basis of socialism. It’s the basis of communism. They are both apathetical to the Constitution. So you can either live in the United States or live in a communist regime. You can’t have it both ways.
JIVE: I have another question from one young lady who posts in our forums. She is a college studen in her early twenties and she asks the following question:
“I just want to throw out a question to the Libertarians as to their feelings on communism, because what you’ve seemed to have posited is the final, and never yet implemented step of communism, the eradication of all government because you believe that people have the intrinsic ability to take care of one another if we only remove government from their lives. This seems utopian to me. There are people in every strata of society who even with laws in place take advantage and exploit the people around them. For this reason we have set up governments throughout time. Humans abhor anarchy, even to the point that they would preserve systems that oppress them for fear of facing what would happen without a system at all.”
Badnarik: To say that Libertarians are anarchists is to mislabel us. If you live in a log cabin you require fire in order to survive. In fact, you use it to heat the home, cook your food. Fire is so important you actually have a special place for the fire: It’s called a fireplace. The Founding Fathers understood that government was important to our survival. It is so important that our Founding Fathers created a special place for government: It’s called the Constitution. Anytime the fire is in the fireplace, it is a good fire; anytime the fire gets outside the fireplace, it is a bad fire, and we automatically and reflexively stomp it out. Anytime the government is within the boundaries of the Constitution it is a good government. However, anytime the government gets outside the bounds of the constitution it is a bad government, and we should automatically and reflexively stomp it out. Libertarians are not anarchists. But [the Founders] wrote the Constitution as a limitation on the government. The reason [they] did that is the government always infringes on your rights when it is allowed to expand. Bill Clinton allowed the federal government to expand two and a half percent every year while he was in office. George Bush has allowed the federal government to expand seven and a half percent a year, and that doesn’t include the billions of dollars we’ve spent on the battle in Iraq.
JIVE: Now when you say "expansion," exactly what do you mean by that?
Badnarik: Additional federal agencies, more money, more people in Washington D.C. making decisions you should be making yourself. We literally cannot afford the government we have. Congress spends $700 billion more than they budget. Why would they even bother writing a budget? When you miss it by over half a trillion dollars. That’s not like, “Oh gosh, we had a few additional expenses"—that’s a half a trillion dollars that you just missed the boat on. I mean it’s very little wonder that the United States is multi-trillions of dollars in debt.
Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe in a minimal government and we believe in individual rights and personal responsibility. You can do anything you want as long as you’re not hurting somebody else. Again, the idea that there’s going to be people running rampant through the streets is bogus. The idea that we’re going to allow our elderly or disadvantaged people to starve is completely unfounded.
JIVE: There are people that have grandparents, for example, who are on Social Security and Medicare. They are concerned about these family members.
Badnarik: And they should be. That’s right. They have grandparents who are on Social Security, and nobody who is on Social Security feels secure, do they? They have to either choose between buying food this month or buying medication this month. But Social Security doesn’t give them enough money to do both.
John Kerry, during his acceptance speech, said that he loves old people and that he wanted to keep the elderly on Social Security. Well, if you love old people so much, why would you want to keep them on a system that is $7 trillion under-funded? Social Security is like the Titanic with the propellers up in the air: You don’t have to be a Navy admiral to know that this boat is going to sink. If Social Security is such a great thing, why is it our members of Congress aren’t on Social Security? Why do the members of Congress have a very special retirement plan where they work for the government for four years and they get 100 percent of their final pay for the rest of their lives? Oh, and by the way, where [else] can you find a job where you can vote yourself a raise? If Social Security were so damn great then the members of Congress would be on it. The solution is to do the same thing that the country of Chile did, which is to offer a privatized retirement system alongside the government system. We’re not taking away Social Security away from anybody who wants to stay on it. But if we give you a system that is much, much better and actually pays you money ... In two years 98 percent of the people of Chile moved from the government retirement system to the privatized system.
JIVE: So there is a model out there that could be followed to some degree?
Badnarik: Oh, there is absolutely a model out there; we’re not inventing anything new. I spoke at a college where a young woman was concerned about her grandmother, and she goes, “Where’s Grandma going to get money for her medication?” And I asked, “Well do you love your grandmother? Would you help her pay for that medication?” And she said, “Well, yes. But what about that rich guy up on the hill? The guy with the SUV in the driveway, the guy who has more money than he knows what to do with?” I am always fascinated by people who know when other people have more money than they know what to do with. I said, “Well how are you going to get that money? Are you going to take a gun and go up there and take that money by force?” And she goes, “Well, no, of course not! That would be theft!” And so I said, “So you’re expecting me to go up there and take that money by force so you can have the money without the danger and without the guilt?” I said, “How are you going to acquire that person’s money if they don’t want to give it to you and you’re not going to use force?” She said, “Well, gosh, I really don’t know.” I responded with, "Well, when you figure that one out, you come and talk to me. But until then, my job is to protect the property of Americans and I will protect your property from everybody else, but I’m going to protect everybody else’s property from you.”
JIVE: Well, to wrap this up, what would be the one thing you would want the 18- to 25-year-old person who is very much undecided about this year’s election and concerned about if they were to vote, for example, for a Libertarian candidate, that they would be throwing away the vote or they would be just ensuring George Bush stays in office, which many of them do not want to happen, for example. What’s the one thing that you would tell them that would help settle their thoughts?
Badnarik: Well, I would like to remind them that at their point in life they are now taking full responsibility for all their actions. They want to make their own decisions and I encourage them to do so. Instead of just following the crowd and doing what everybody else is doing, I encourage them to go to our Web site at www.lp.org and study the issues you see there. Actually decide which political party has your best interests at heart.
I strongly recommend that you vote for the candidate that will best represent you in Washington. Now I want to remind you that whether you vote for Bush or for Kerry, they’re both going to raise your taxes, they’re both going to pass unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act, they’re both going to restore the draft, and they’re both going to send people your age into additional fighting overseas. So if you want to make your own decisions and you think it’s your life to live and not the government’s to control, then you really only have one choice. If you vote for the lesser of two evils and your candidate wins, you still get evil. The only wasted vote is when you vote for a candidate that you don’t respect.
