Home | Community | Message Board


Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Powder, Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
An interview with Michael Badnarik
    #3000825 - 08/13/04 03:05 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Interview done with the Augusta Free Press that, in addition to summing up his positions on a plethora of issues excellently, shows the kind of person Michael is.

An interview with Michael Badnarik

Selected quotes:

Quote:

AFP: There are many choices this presidential-election season. Why should America vote for Michael Badnarik for president?

Badnarik: "I'm the only candidate who will reduce the size and power of the federal government. The Democrats have never made any secret of the fact that they want to grow government - and the Republicans have stopped pretending that they want to reduce it. So the real answer is another question: 'What do you want in a president?' If you want a pro-freedom, limited government executive, then I'm the man to elect."





Quote:

AFP: The recent findings from the 9/11 Commission Report did not satisfy the American public concerning the lack of accountability - and enabling the county to move forward with new standards with our nations' ability to protect the citizens.

What are your personal observations about the 9/11 Commission Report?

Badnarik: "The 9/11 Report reads sort of like a Rogaine prescription for a chemotherapy patient. Yes, the patient is losing his hair, but that's the least of his problems. The report talks a lot about enhancing the nation's ability to collect and analyze intelligence, but it doesn't get to the real problem, which is an interventionist foreign policy that needlessly creates enemies. Until we address that, we're stuck playing catch-up with an ever larger, ever more adaptive set of enemies. And that's a losing game."





Quote:

AFP: In a classic dog-eat-dog political tale, our local Republican state elected officials have rejected President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative with 2004 state legislation that would lower the federal-to-state requirements. Several legislators have labeled the Bush federal education mandate as another "big government program" - along with being too intrusive and costly to maintain. That high price tag is due to the continuing underfunding by the federal government, which can be compared with state unfunded mandates to localities.

Where do you stand, Mr. Badnarik, on President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiatives?

Badnarik: "I've read the Constitution many times. No matter how I read it - forward, backward, upside down or with my Captain Liberty Secret Decoder Ring - I can't find anything in it that empowers the federal government to be involved in education. And since the federal government got involved in education, our children have slipped from first to 29th place in terms of literacy, numeracy and other measurements of educational excellence.

"The No Child Left Behind Act is just another extension of the policies that have destroyed American education. As president, I propose to get the federal government out of education, and I hope that the states will substantially privatize it as well. That's the only way to get back to our position of preeminence in learning."





Quote:

AFP: Mr. Badnarik, the federal government has grown three times the size of the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton. Who's to blame?

Badnarik: "Who's to blame? Who's in the White House? Who controls Congress?

"Over the last four years, the Republican administration and the Republican Congress have grown government like LBJ on a crack binge. They got a one-party government for the first time in 40 years by claiming that they'd cut government back. Now they're fresh out of excuses.





--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3000886 - 08/13/04 03:21 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Sad but true.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3001188 - 08/13/04 04:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

This guy's got his head and heart in the right place. Thanks for posting this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3001256 - 08/13/04 04:35 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I'm the only candidate who will reduce the size and power of the federal government

What does this soundbite mean exactly? "Size" in terms of what? "Power" in terms of what?

If you want a pro-freedom

Everyone from Adolf Hitler to George Bush has been "pro-freedom". What does it mean other than being another soundbite?

but it doesn't get to the real problem, which is an interventionist foreign policy that needlessly creates enemies

Not sure what he means by "interventionist". Is he trying to imply Bush intervened to "help" the Iraqis out of the goodness of his heart? First and foremost invading Iraq was about making enormous profits for arms manufacturers, private security firms and oil corporations. The priority is making astronomical profits for your corporate buddies by creating imaginary reasons to keep defence spending up, not particularly "intervening" to "let freedom reign"

Over the last four years, the Republican administration and the Republican Congress have grown government like LBJ on a crack binge

Does this guy have anything to say but meaningless soundbites about "big government"? I presume this means he'll do his best to transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy at an even greater rate than has been happening over the last 25 years?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3001330 - 08/13/04 04:47 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this asshole saying he wants you to have to go on your hands and knees to the vicar for welfare? Jesus fucking christ. It's gonna be like back in the 19th century "REPENT THY SINS AND THY SHALL RECEIVE HELP..THY SON IS HANDICAPPED? TIS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL AND IT MUST BE CAST OUT SO THY SHALL RECIEVE NO MONEY".

I want the church with as little power as possible.

Badnarik: "Not only do I approve of churches undertaking to provide welfare services, I want to hand the job over to them entirely. The difference between President Bush's proposal and mine is that mine doesn't include a taxpayer handout. Charity should be private. The churches can ask people to provide. My job is to cut taxes so that they can afford to provide."


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3001916 - 08/13/04 07:46 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

What does this soundbite mean exactly? "Size" in terms of what? "Power" in terms of what?



Size meaning he wants to eliminate unneccesary and unconstitutional parts of the federal government. Power meaning he wants to take away unneccesary and unconstitutional powers that the federal government has usurped over time and return them, as the 10th Amendment delineates, to the states or to the people.

Quote:

Everyone from Adolf Hitler to George Bush has been "pro-freedom". What does it mean other than being another soundbite?




Come now Alex, you can disagree with what he's saying and with his politics, but what he wants he makes very clear. To allow people to make the decisions that effect their own lives, rather than having politicians make those decisions for them.

Quote:

Is he trying to imply Bush intervened to "help" the Iraqis out of the goodness of his heart?



I'm truly floored. You've outdone yourself and have reached a new low. So blind are you that the act of rational interpretation is apparently out of your grasp now. Non-intervention...non meaning the lack of...intervention meaning the act of intervening in a country that did not initiate force against us. He was and is tremendously against the War in Iraq. He would pull our troops out as soon and as safe as possible. I don't know where you got from what he said the Bush comment above.

Quote:

First and foremost invading Iraq was about making enormous profits for arms manufacturers, private security firms and oil corporations. The priority is making astronomical profits for your corporate buddies by creating imaginary reasons to keep defence spending up, not particularly "intervening" to "let freedom reign"




Yeah that's great. Get off the soap box, that's irrelevant to this thread and what Michael clearly stated.

Quote:

Does this guy have anything to say but meaningless soundbites about "big government"?



Funny you keep mentioning sound bites. I don't think he's too worried about those. The media in this country ignore's third parties that don't include Ralph Nader like the plague.

Quote:

I presume this means he'll do his best to transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy at an even greater rate than has been happening over the last 25 years?



Hey Alex...just because the left 'works' by stealing from the rich(and everyone else) and giving part of that to the poor, doesn't mean libertarians do the exact opposite. No, libertarians prefer to watch the free market, in which the rich get richer AND the poor get richer, work. Before you divert this thread with some nonsense about the forcible prevention of unions, 13 year old girls slaving away, and the general oppression of everyone whose not in the elite, libertarians are, much to your dismay I'm sure, against all of that.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3001948 - 08/13/04 07:59 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Correct me if I'm wrong but is this asshole saying he wants you to have to go on your hands and knees to the vicar for welfare?



Yes that's actually what he said word for word. Good reading!

Quote:

Jesus fucking christ.



Can't be saying things like that. They might cut off your charity for a week.

Quote:

It's gonna be like back in the 19th century "REPENT THY SINS AND THY SHALL RECEIVE HELP..THY SON IS HANDICAPPED? TIS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL AND IT MUST BE CAST OUT SO THY SHALL RECIEVE NO MONEY".




Exactly. Michael's also strongly pro-Inquisition, since you seem to like his position on this topic so much.

Quote:

I want the church with as little power as possible.



Serious business now. Michael of course does not mean he wants to turn over the act of charity SOLEY to churches, he's just responding to a specific question by conveying the concept. The concept being, help for those who need it should not be taken from people at the barrel of a gun. By mentioning one particular institution that currently does and will continue to deliver charity as the welfare state is generally phased out, Michael is trying to disperse the liberal mythos that fiscal conservatives hate the poor and are against helping them. Just for the hell of it, since I doubt you care much for the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government remains with the states respectively, or with the people. At the very least the state governments should be dispensing welfare, not the federal government.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003049 - 08/14/04 02:12 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I'm the only candidate who will reduce the size and power of the federal government

Everyone from Adolf Hitler to George Bush has been "pro-freedom".




Nice Bush-Hitler jab. You worked it in subtle and silky smooth. Butter. You didn't have to work for it, it was already there, even in a thread about Michael Badnarik. That Bush-Hitler thing is so ingrained in your mental subset that you probably didn't even think about it when you wrote it. It just comes natural to you. That is talent my friend.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003108 - 08/14/04 02:30 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Size meaning he wants to eliminate unneccesary

Unneccesary according to who?

but what he wants he makes very clear. To allow people to make the decisions that effect their own lives, rather than having politicians make those decisions for them.

Still too vague for me Anca. Bush said exactly the same thing about the "people of Iraq".

Non-intervention...non meaning the lack of...intervention meaning the act of intervening in a country that did not initiate force against us.

Well, what he actually said was an "interventionist foreign policy". I was just bemused by the "interventionist" idea. That's like saying Hitler "intervened" in Russia. "Launching illegal murderous wars of aggression" would have been more accurate. If he's against the war in Iraq, fine.

Before you divert this thread with some nonsense about the forcible prevention of unions, 13 year old girls slaving away, and the general oppression of everyone whose not in the elite, libertarians are, much to your dismay I'm sure, against all of that.

So you are against sweatshops? Are you sure about that? I've heard an awful lot of far right "libertarians" on the board insisting it is a 12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003131 - 08/14/04 02:36 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Yes that's actually what he said word for word

So let me get this straight. You and your far right libertarian buddies want to put fundamentalist christians in charge of who gets social welfare. That's your big idea right?

And you talk about "freedom"?  :confused:

Michael is trying to disperse the liberal mythos that fiscal conservatives hate the poor and are against helping them.

By placing their welfare in the hands of fundamentalists. So if a christian sees you leaving a titty bar at 2am your welfare is removed for 6 months while you beg the lord for forgiveness? That's what you call "helping the poor"?

At the very least the state governments should be dispensing welfare, not the federal government.

Rather the state governments than Jimmy Swaggart that's for sure.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003736 - 08/14/04 09:22 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Unneccesary according to who?




The unneccesary is incidental, many of the unconstitutional things he'll be eliminating also happen to be unneccesary.

Quote:

Still too vague for me Anca. Bush said exactly the same thing about the "people of Iraq".




Have some examples then(one I know you love): Michael would like to see the Social Security system gradually reformed with an emphasis on private investment for young workers and eventually phased out. Thus, he would return control over ones retirement finances from the federal government to the individual citizens. Michael would like to get the government out of marriages and let individual churches have the freedom to marry whom they will...gay or straight. Michael wants individuals to be responsible for what their children are watching/listening to, and not the free-speech decimating FCC. Etc.

Quote:

Well, what he actually said was an "interventionist foreign policy". I was just bemused by the "interventionist" idea. That's like saying Hitler "intervened" in Russia. "Launching illegal murderous wars of aggression" would have been more accurate. If he's against the war in Iraq, fine.




I really have no clue what document you were reading, but it sure as hell wasn't the one I provided. Let's take a look at what Michael said closely:

The report talks a lot about enhancing the nation's ability to collect and analyze intelligence, but it doesn't get to the real problem, which is an interventionist foreign policy that needlessly creates enemies. Until we address that, we're stuck playing catch-up with an ever larger, ever more adaptive set of enemies. And that's a losing game.
...
More to the point, the answer lies beyond the horizon that the commission set for itself. We need to get U.S. troops out of the more than 130 countries in which they are now operating and look instead to the defense of the United States. How Al-Qaeda attacked us is less important than why Al-Qaeda attacked us. They've never been shy about saying why. They've been telling us since 1991. They've told us before and after every attack since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that their problem with us is U.S. troops gallivanting about on Muslim soil.


Unless you have glaucoma, it should be blatantly clear what he's saying here. The United States intervening in the affairs of other countries is an enormous cause of why we have so many enemies today. Michael wants to limit United States foreign policy to the role prescribed by Washington and Jefferson: peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.

Quote:

I've heard an awful lot of far right "libertarians" on the board insisting it is a 12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop.



If true, and I'd like to see some links, they diverge immensely from mainstream libertarian thought.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003743 - 08/14/04 09:32 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

So let me get this straight. You and your far right libertarian buddies want to put fundamentalist christians in charge of who gets social welfare. That's your big idea right?

And you talk about "freedom"?




I feel like there's a language barrier here. Our 'big idea' is changing forced social welfare to voluntary charity. This means that the duties of dispensing said charity will be left the 'fundamentalist christians', the fundamentalist jews and muslims, the fundamentalists of other religions, the moderates of those religions, private individuals, other charity groups, etc. Forced in the Public Sector to Voluntary in the Private Sector. Forced in the Public Sector to Voluntary in the Private Sector. Forced in the Public Sector to Voluntary in the Private Sector.

Quote:

By placing their welfare in the hands of fundamentalists. So if a christian sees you leaving a titty bar at 2am your welfare is removed for 6 months while you beg the lord for forgiveness? That's what you call "helping the poor"?




Yeah that sounds like a likely scenario.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003917 - 08/14/04 11:39 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

If he wins, he could easily be the first candidate who used the phrase "crack binge" in an interview. Thats something. Sadly, a vote for him would be a vote wasted, so I'll have to vote for BushCorp.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3003926 - 08/14/04 11:44 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Sadly, a vote for him would be a vote wasted, so I'll have to vote for BushCorp.



Why do you feel it would be a vote wasted?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003938 - 08/14/04 11:48 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I've heard an awful lot of far right "libertarians" on the board insisting it is a 12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop.

oh please alex. that's bullshit. you bring up child labor almost every time you feel the need to blast free market captalism, and every time a capitalist explains to you, in clear terms, why child labor is not permissible in such an arrangement. now you're claiming to have heard libertarians defending it, when you've actually seen them oppose it on numerous occasions.

it would seem as though you're either delusional or lying. have you heard that? seriously? i doubt it.

here are links to the search page and archives. who said that and when?

for your convenience, the search function: search

and archives: archives

i can provide many examples of libertarians on this board opposing that which you've claimed to have heard them advocate. many of these statements can be found in threads that you've posted in, and even in posts that you yourself have responded to.

can you provide but a single example of this "awful lot" of pro-child labor talk you claim to have heard from libertarians on this board? just one?


Edited by mushmaster (08/14/04 01:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003951 - 08/14/04 11:51 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
Quote:

Sadly, a vote for him would be a vote wasted, so I'll have to vote for BushCorp.



Why do you feel it would be a vote wasted?




The majority of my friends, liberals most conservatives some, have no idea who Badnarik is. The oh-so-mainstream media gives him less coverage than they do Nader. Most people will walk into the polls with no idea who the guy with the funny name is. I don't want my swing vote to go for him and have Kerry win. Shitty situation, this "best of 2 bad choices".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3003968 - 08/14/04 11:58 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

your vote alone isn't going to affect the outcome of election anyway. you may as well vote for whomever you actually support.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3003986 - 08/14/04 12:04 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

good point, maybe I will vote for him. I am a registered libertarian...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3004003 - 08/14/04 12:12 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

The majority of my friends, liberals most conservatives some, have no idea who Badnarik is.



Yet. You could yourself change that if you wanted.

Quote:

The oh-so-mainstream media gives him less coverage than they do Nader.



Unfortunately true. The Badnarik campaign has been trying some very innovative(relative to previous LP Presidential Campaigns) new strategies though, which have started to garner some media attention. For instance, the campaign is attempting to focus their efforts on a single swing state over a week-long period pumping enormous sums(for a libertarian campaign) of money into radio and tv ads(produced by Hollywood director Aaron Russo) in addition to Michael campaigning around the state. The Badnarik people commissioned a professional polling service to determine libertarian reception and popularity prior to the campaign, in which 5% said Badnarik has their vote and 7% said Badnarik WOULD have their vote if that vote determined who won the race(meaning they were fearful of 'wasting their vote'). They will be running the same poll after the week-long blitz ends to determine effectiveness. While it cannot be proven that this was because of Michael, both Kerry and Bush(Bush actually changed his schedule...) decided to come to New Mexico to campaign this same week.

August 13th...Both the Bush campaigns and Kerry campaigns are being grilled by New Mexico reporters about Badnarik, and are stumbling all over themselves trying to figure out how to deal with it. It is THE hot political news in New Mexico right now. We have been inundated with calls from reporters wanting comments from us about the comments from them...
-Badnarik Website


So apparently the local media at the very least has been catching on. The upcoming poll numbers should be very telling.

Quote:

Most people will walk into the polls with no idea who the guy with the funny name is.



A damn shame that everyone who desires liberty and constitutional government should work to change.

Quote:

I don't want my swing vote to go for him and have Kerry win.



I don't know what state you're in but surely you have to realize that Bush differs from Kerry on very few points. Bush, with a Republican Congress, has completely abandoned the Republican 'Contract with America' to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Deficits are insane. Social Program-spending is insane. Federal Spending on Education is insane. Medicare and Social Security are not being reformed. Bush's tax cuts amount to a 1% cut phased in over 10 years, if it lasts that long. The man is as fiscally liberal as most democrats. The only thing the Republicans are going to understand is for you to take your vote elsewhere. Even if only enough people vote Libertarian to make a difference in the outcome of the election, and at 3% half a month ago this looks EXTREMELY likely, the Republicans will have to shift back to a party of limited, constitutional government.

Quote:

Shitty situation, this "best of 2 bad choices".



It doesn't have to be.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3004398 - 08/14/04 03:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

while I agreed with most of what Badnarik had to say, I took exception to this:

Quote:

"I've read the Constitution many times. No matter how I read it - forward, backward, upside down or with my Captain Liberty Secret Decoder Ring - I can't find anything in it that empowers the federal government to be involved in education. And since the federal government got involved in education, our children have slipped from first to 29th place in terms of literacy, numeracy and other measurements of educational excellence.





29th place, eh? Who is that behind? Japan, and most of Europe, right? Do those countries have capitalist education systems?

I would hate to see an America in which education was controlled by private interests. For one, no one would be able to afford it, and for two, I distrust the motives of the businesses who would be teaching our children.

While I agree that the education system in the US is fucked up, I think it has more to do with curriculum and teaching methods than the source of funding.

Even the quintessential libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, recognized the need for public education. His accquiesence to this socialist contention in his otherwise libertarian philosophy is a sign of great wisdom and ideological flexibility. If only all libertarians were as openminded, instead of advocating across-the-board ideologies based in moral convictions which hold no objective validity in reality.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3004406 - 08/14/04 03:19 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

One reason why so many European countries are ahead of us in education is not because it's funded by the government, but because they separate the college-bound kids from those who go into apprenticeships. This way, those who desire to go further with their education can be in a productive environment, while those who would rather be a mechanic, carpenter, etc. go on a separate track and can go to trade school to learn those skills instead.

As for public education, it is one of many issues on which I have not made up my mind entirely. I am highly skeptical of those who say the economy would collapse without it. However, I do believe that poor children should get a chance to advance themselves through education. I have yet to be convinced that public education is the only means to achieve this, but I'm open to the possiblity.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3004410 - 08/14/04 03:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

Even the quintessential libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, recognized the need for public education.

Hmmm. I thought I was pretty familiar with Jefferson's writings, but he was a prolific writer indeed, so I guess it's possible I missed the part where he advocated the federal government taxing US citizens in order to fund schools. I'm sure you could provide me the reference, though.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3004428 - 08/14/04 03:28 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

School vouchers give the poor an opportunity for education while giving an option outside the government monopoly. Where the government fails we need to give the free market a chance.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3004444 - 08/14/04 03:34 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I'd be ok with vouchers except that the money for those still comes from taxpayers. I'd prefer a solution that didn't involve forcing people to pay for other people's education.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3004509 - 08/14/04 03:53 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

place, eh? Who is that behind? Japan, and most of Europe, right? Do those countries have capitalist education systems?

I would hate to see an America in which education was controlled by private interests. For one, no one would be able to afford it, and for two, I distrust the motives of the businesses who would be teaching our children.

While I agree that the education system in the US is fucked up, I think it has more to do with curriculum and teaching methods than the source of funding.

Even the quintessential libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, recognized the need for public education. His accquiesence to this socialist contention in his otherwise libertarian philosophy is a sign of great wisdom and ideological flexibility. If only all libertarians were as openminded, instead of advocating across-the-board ideologies based in moral convictions which hold no objective validity in reality.



Michael is responding here to a question about No Child Left Behind. His answer is specifically with regard to FEDERAL government involvement in education. I would not bet on a Libertarian President(with a supportive congress) doing any more in a first administration than eliminating the DoE and returning the job of public education soley to the states. The more centralized education becomes, the more emphasis seems to be put on teaching to tests(for obvious monetary reasons) as opposed to teaching to learn. I think a great discussion could be had over public vs. private education but for the purposes of this thread, the platform of Michael Badnarik is that the 10th Amendment is applicable in this situation and the states should run their public education systems as they see fit.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3004683 - 08/14/04 05:00 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Eliminating the DOE would be a good move.

How do you go about doing that? Do you need an act of Congress, or can the President do it himself? I was wondering who has the power to hire and fire the people that work at the Department of Education. If the President appoints the Head of the DOE, can that person simply just fire everyone below them and refuse to hire anyone?

Just curious. Lord knows that getting rid of government programs is a lot harder than creating them.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
    #3004702 - 08/14/04 05:09 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
DoctorJ writes:

Even the quintessential libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, recognized the need for public education.

Hmmm. I thought I was pretty familiar with Jefferson's writings, but he was a prolific writer indeed, so I guess it's possible I missed the part where he advocated the federal government taxing US citizens in order to fund schools. I'm sure you could provide me the reference, though.

pinky




"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526

"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810. ME 12:417

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:322

"Though [the people] may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:211


No Freedom Without Education

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1821. ME 19:408

"Freedom [is] the first-born daughter of science." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. ME 9:297

"Light and liberty go together." --Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe, 1795.

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Madison Version FE 4:480


Education and Republican Government

"[I have] a conviction that science is important to the preservation of our republican government, and that it is also essential to its protection against foreign power." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1821. ME 15:340

"There are two subjects, indeed, which I shall claim a right to further as long as I breathe: the public education, and the sub-division of counties into wards. I consider the continuance of republican government as absolutely hanging on these two hooks." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814. ME 14:84

"The value of science to a republican people, the security it gives to liberty by enlightening the minds of its citizens, the protection it affords against foreign power, the virtue it inculcates, the just emulation of the distinction it confers on nations foremost in it; in short, its identification with power, morals, order and happiness (which merits to it premiums of encouragement rather than repressive taxes), are considerations [that should] always [be] present and [bear] with their just weight." --Thomas Jefferson: On the Book Duty, 1821.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

"[In a republic, according to Montesquieu in Spirit of the Laws, IV,ch.5,] 'virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtue; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself... Now a government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it... Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education; but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

"In the constitution of Spain as proposed by the late Cortes, there was a principle entirely new to me:... that no person born after that day should ever acquire the rights of citizenship until he could read and write. It is impossible sufficiently to estimate the wisdom of this provision. Of all those which have been thought of for securing fidelity in the administration of the government, constant reliance to the principles of the constitution, and progressive amendments with the progressive advances of the human mind or changes in human affairs, it is the most effectual." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:491

"[The] provision [in the new constitution of Spain] which, after a certain epoch, disfranchises every citizen who cannot read and write... is the fruitful germ of the improvement of everything good and the correction of everything imperfect in the present constitution. This will give you an enlightened people and an energetic public opinion which will control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to Chevalier de Ouis, 1814. ME 14:130


Government's Responsibility to Educate

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. (Forrest version) ME 6:392

"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786. ME 19:24


Educate Every Citizen

"A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1818. FE 10:102

"It is highly interesting to our country, and it is the duty of its functionaries, to provide that every citizen in it should receive an education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1814. ME 19:213

"The mass of our citizens may be divided into two classes -- the laboring and the learned. The laboring will need the first grade of education to qualify them for their pursuits and duties; the learned will need it as a foundation for further acquirements." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1814. ME 19:213

"By... [selecting] the youths of genius from among the classes of the poor, we hope to avail the State of those talents which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use if not sought for and cultivated." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:206

"Instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger than benefit to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society and scattered with equal hand through all its conditions, was deemed essential to a well-ordered republic." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. MW 1:54

"I do most anxiously wish to see the highest degrees of education given to the higher degrees of genius and to all degrees of it, so much as may enable them to read and understand what is going on in the world and to keep their part of it going on right; for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence." --Thomas Jefferson to Mann Page, 1795. ME 9:30

source: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www?...8&textreg=0


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3004721 - 08/14/04 05:16 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

JesusChrist said:
School vouchers give the poor an opportunity for education while giving an option outside the government monopoly. Where the government fails we need to give the free market a chance.




the only private schools I am aware of are controlled by organized religion. Is that better than government? Who do I want to brainwash my children? The government or the church? Doesnt seem like much of a choice to me. At least the government teaches evolution.

Has there ever been a secular private school established? If so, why hasnt it dominated the marketplace with its 'superior capitalist methodology'?

Can you imagine if education were completely under the control of big business? What if Coca-Cola and Marlboro taught your kids' Health class?


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3004728 - 08/14/04 05:19 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:

Michael is responding here to a question about No Child Left Behind. His answer is specifically with regard to FEDERAL government involvement in education. I would not bet on a Libertarian President(with a supportive congress) doing any more in a first administration than eliminating the DoE and returning the job of public education soley to the states. The more centralized education becomes, the more emphasis seems to be put on teaching to tests(for obvious monetary reasons) as opposed to teaching to learn. I think a great discussion could be had over public vs. private education but for the purposes of this thread, the platform of Michael Badnarik is that the 10th Amendment is applicable in this situation and the states should run their public education systems as they see fit.




So do you think the State of Alabama should be able to teach racism and religious dogma as fact? Because the good ol boys that run the state probably would if it werent for a dependance on Federal funds, and a restriction to only operate under federal standards, which doesnt allow them to do so.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3004740 - 08/14/04 05:22 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

have you ever been to alabama?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3004743 - 08/14/04 05:24 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

many, many times

I've seen crosses burning on the sides of the fucking highways there.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3004931 - 08/14/04 06:48 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:

Has there ever been a secular private school established?





http://www.MPH.net. Not that expensive either


--------------------


Edited by zappaisgod (08/14/04 06:53 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3004948 - 08/14/04 06:55 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

It's http://www.mph.net the edit didn't work for the URL


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 30 days
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3004982 - 08/14/04 07:07 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Has there ever been a secular private school established?




Sure, I went to one.


Quote:

If so, why hasnt it dominated the marketplace with its 'superior capitalist methodology'?




it did, it just had to reject loads of people to keep its small class sizes. same way that harvard and other ivies dominate colleges for the most part.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Tao]
    #3004990 - 08/14/04 07:10 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Where'd you go? I posted mine.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 30 days
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3005035 - 08/14/04 07:28 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

sorry, id rather not


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3007403 - 08/16/04 01:08 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Nice list of Jefferson quotes showing he recognized the value of an informed populace.

Please provide us with one where he advocated the federal government taxing US citizens in order to fund schools. Thank you.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3007586 - 08/16/04 01:59 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

now you're claiming to have heard libertarians defending it,

You have never heard anyone on this board defending sweatshop labour?

Please  :rolleyes:

when you've actually seen them oppose it on numerous occasions.

Use the search engine and find me an example of a far right libertarian attacking sweatshop labour. Give me an example of a far right libertarian saying Nike should be fined and bankrupt for their abuse of sweatshop labour.

Remember, the bulk of sweatshop labour involves children as they are the easiest to intimidate and you can make more profit from them.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3007597 - 08/16/04 02:02 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

One reason why so many European countries are ahead of us in education is not because it's funded by the government, but because they separate the college-bound kids from those who go into apprenticeships.

This certainly isn't the case in the UK.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3007620 - 08/16/04 02:09 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
now you're claiming to have heard libertarians defending it,

You have never heard anyone on this board defending sweatshop labour?

Please  :rolleyes:

when you've actually seen them oppose it on numerous occasions.

Use the search engine and find me an example of a far right libertarian attacking sweatshop labour. Give me an example of a far right libertarian saying Nike should be fined and bankrupt for their abuse of sweatshop labour.

Remember, the bulk of sweatshop labour involves children as they are the easiest to intimidate and you can make more profit from them. 



You claim that libertarians on this board support "12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop."

I have seen and made many a post saying that some employment is better than none, but no one is claiming that child labor is ok. Quit trying to be deceptive alex.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Edited by z@z.com (08/16/04 02:10 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: z@z.com]
    #3007636 - 08/16/04 02:13 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Quit trying to be deceptive alex.



I don't think he tries. It just comes naturally.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: z@z.com]
    #3008295 - 08/16/04 09:15 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

z@z.com said:
I have seen and made many a post saying that some employment is better than none, but no one is claiming that child labor is ok.



Notice that he refuses to provide a link or a quote... typical.

Quote:

Quit trying to be deceptive alex.



You might as well ask a skunk to smell sweet.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
    #3008513 - 08/16/04 12:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Nice list of Jefferson quotes showing he recognized the value of an informed populace.

Please provide us with one where he advocated the federal government taxing US citizens in order to fund schools. Thank you.

pinky




those quotes show more than his recognition of the value of a well-informed populace, and you know it.

you're asking me to find a quote by jefferson which is worded the exact way you want it to be. I dont think they talked like that back then. Why dont you read the quotes I posted again. All of them. Jefferson may have been cautious and non-commital with his words, but thats politics. Try and read between the lines.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3008527 - 08/16/04 12:25 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

You have never heard anyone on this board defending sweatshop labour?

not for 12 year olds. have you?

Use the search engine and find me an example of a far right libertarian attacking sweatshop labour.

you claimed to have heard libertarians defending not sweatshop labor, but sweatshop labor for 12 year olds. would you like me to find examples of libertarians actually opposing child labor? can you find any examples of libertarians supporting child labor (as you claim to have heard)?

nice try at weaseling out of this one. the "12 year old girls" part is there as a part of the public record for all to see. this is what you claimed:

"I've heard an awful lot of far right "libertarians" on the board insisting it is a 12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop."

note the part about "12 year old girls". note that no libertarian has actually ever defended that on this board. note that unless you're delusional, you've never heard them defend it, and unless you're delusional, you knew you had never heard them defend it when you made that claim.

so what is it alex? lying or delusional?


Edited by mushmaster (08/16/04 12:32 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3008781 - 08/16/04 01:46 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

those quotes show more than his recognition of the value of a well-informed populace, and you know it.

Actually, no they don't. Please choose one which shows more than that.

you're asking me to find a quote by jefferson which is worded the exact way you want it to be.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to provide one which shows he believed one of the functions of the US federal government was to fund schools, or even to find one where he advocates the government set standards by which others must educate children . Your original statement was:

Quote:

Even the quintessential libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, recognized the need for public education.



This is quite simply untrue. He recognized the value of an educated public, true, but that is not the same thing as saying he felt "public education" was needed.

Jefferson may have been cautious and non-commital with his words, but thats politics. Try and read between the lines.

LOL! If there was one thing I haven't heard Jefferson accused of before, it's being non-commital with his words. You can rest assured that if he had favored having the federal government in charge of educating children it would not have been necessary to "read between the lines" in order to determine this.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3008797 - 08/16/04 01:53 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

did you even read the quotes? specifically, these:

Quote:

"There are two subjects, indeed, which I shall claim a right to further as long as I breathe: the public education, and the sub-division of counties into wards. I consider the continuance of republican government as absolutely hanging on these two hooks." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814. ME 14:84





Quote:

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people.




Quote:

"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan. "




Quote:

"A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1818. FE 10:102





--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3008820 - 08/16/04 01:59 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Yes, I read them.

I ask again, where does he advocate the US federal government funding public schools? Where does he advocate the US federal government regulating the content of what is taught to US children?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
    #3008874 - 08/16/04 02:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

all I said was that he recognized the need for public education. I said nothing about his endorsement of federal funding or curricular standards, although I do think that these things follow naturally from what he said, at least according to my interpretation.

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore, but I will say this:

the writings of Jefferson are similar to the writings of Moses, in that both bodies of work can be interpreted in a myriad of ways.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3008929 - 08/16/04 02:35 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

all I said was that he recognized the need for public education.

Context, Doc, context. You ask me to "read between the lines," yet try to evade the context in which your statement (and the even more dubious one following it) were made.

Your reference to Jefferson was part and parcel of an attempted refutation of Badnarik's position on the federal government's involvement in education. It was a textbook example of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, and a poor one at that, since Jefferson definitely did not acquiesce "to this socialist contention in his otherwise libertarian philosophy."

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
    #3009004 - 08/16/04 02:59 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I wasnt intending to refute badnarik's contentions with the jefferson reference, I was merely pointing out how libertarian ideals have become more rigid and inflexible in the past 200 years. Libertarianism has become less of a science and more of a dogma.

we all know Jefferson professed very libertarian political philosophies. But there were instances in which he compromised these philosophies in order to accomodate situational factors. The Louisiana Purchase is a good example of this. If Jefferson had stuck to his principles, he wouldnt have made the Louisiana Purchase without the consent of congress. But that would have been the wrong decision. One of the things I admire most about Jefferson is his willingness to break his own principles if the situation called for it. My reference to him in my post was merely intended to point out the need for situational ethics, as opposed to rigid moral principles that dont always work in the real world.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3009442 - 08/16/04 04:47 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

not for 12 year olds. have you?

What are you talking about? Child labour is a defining feature of third world sweatshop labour. How can you defend sweatshop labour and condemn it's defining feature at the same time? That's insanity.

you claimed to have heard libertarians defending not sweatshop labor, but sweatshop labor for 12 year olds

Once again, child labour is a defining feature of third world sweatshop labour. Always has been. Are you trying to say the far right libertarians have been defending some idea of sweatshop labour that only exists in their mind? Can we try and deal with reality?

note the part about "12 year old girls". note that no libertarian has actually ever defended that on this board.

Try and understand. I know it's difficult for you but here it is again. As simple as I can make it. A major part of third world sweatshop labour involves child labour. By defending sweatshop labour you are by definition defending child labour. If you wish to talk about your own bizarre personal definition of sweatshop labour that doesn't involve child labour and exists only in your own mind you will have to clearly define what it is. I'm afraid I cannot read your "mind".

The sweatshop labour througout the third world that the far right libertarians have defended repeatedly on the board involves child labour. That's reality. Only a liar would say otherwise.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3009458 - 08/16/04 04:51 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I don't think he tries. It just comes naturally.

What happened to you silver? You were so nice for those two weeks after you had that mushroom trip that you claimed "enlightened" you. I was really impressed. Now you're back making pissy comments to complete strangers on the internet. What went wrong? Didn't the enlightenment thing work out?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3009481 - 08/16/04 04:55 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

delusional it is.

:shrug:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3009506 - 08/16/04 05:01 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

You accept sweatshop labour throughout the third world involves child labour? So what were you defending when you were defending sweatshop labour? Some version that only exists in your mind?

I think that's more obviously delusional mush. Sorry if I couldn't work out that by "sweatshop labour" you actually meant "A version of sweatshop labour that exists nowhere but my mind". I'll try and bear that in mind the next time you mention it.  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3009542 - 08/16/04 05:06 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Child labour is a defining feature of third world sweatshop labour.

Actually, no it is not. I've lived in a Third World country for the last seventeen years, Alex. There are "sweatshops" here, but there ain't any twelve year olds working in them.

But perhaps it's time for you to lay out for us just what your personal definition of "sweatshop" is. I can't help but note (yet again) that although you have been asked for this definition repeatedly in the past, you have refused to provide it.

Clearly, from the emphatic nature of this latest post of yours, your position is that a factory cannot be defined as a "sweatshop" unless it employs pre-adolescent children. I will therefore categorically state that as a Laissez-faire Capitalist, I oppose any such "Alex123sweatshopsTM" (sorry -- can't find the key which generates the nifty little "trademark" character).

It should be noted, however, that the Dominican Republic has no Alex123sweatshopsTM, therefore my personal knowledge of labor conditions in Third World countries is confined only to the non-sweatshop variety.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
    #3009567 - 08/16/04 05:09 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Actually, no it is not. I've lived in a Third World country for the last seventeen years, Alex. There are "sweatshops" here, but there ain't any twelve year olds working in them.

Dominican Republic:

NATIONAL STATISTICS

* For the year 2000, the ILO projects that there will be 122,000 economically active children, 20,000 girls and 102,000 boys between the ages of 10-14, representing 13.22% of this age group. (ILO, International Labour Office - Bureau of Statistics, Economically Active Population 1950-2010, STAT Working Paper, ILO 1997)

* 97,661 children between 10-14 years, and 325,503 between 15-19 years are economically active. (ILO, Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 1999)

* According to the World Bank, 13% of children between the ages of 7-14 do not attend class because they work outside the home or stay home doing house chores. Approximately 11% work and go to school at the same time, which means that for one-fourth of the population of minors it is impossible to continue the education they need to become more skilled. (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Country Report: Dominican Republic, 1999)

* The ILO estimated in August 1997 that 169,000 children between the ages of 7-14 held jobs. (US Dept of State, Human Rights Report, 1998)

* In 1995, there were 137,000 economically active children between the ages of 10-14, representing 16.06% of this age group. Of these, 20,000 were girls and 117,000 were boys. (ILO, International Labour Office - Bureau of Statistics, Economically Active Population 1950-2010, STAT Working Paper, ILO 1997)


* According to the National Population Census of 1993, the economically active population between 10-14 years numbered 89,966, which represents 10.73% of this age group. Out of these, 33.5% were involved in agriculture, community, social and personal services, and 21.6% in the commercial sector, hotels and restaurants. (ILO-IPEC, El trabajo infantil en America Latina - CD-ROM, August 1999)

GENERAL NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS

* Tens of thousands of children begin working before the age of 14. Child labour takes place primarily in the informal economy, agriculture, small businesses, clandestine factories, and prostitution. (US Dept of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 1999, 25 February 2000)

* The county's nine Export Processing Zones are significant employers of underage workers, particularly young girls. (EI, EI Barometer on Human and Trade Union Rights in the Education Sector, 1998)

The Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights stated in 1991 that the Dominican government actively encourages forced labour by children on sugar plantations

http://www.globalmarch.org/worstformsreport/world/dominican-republic.html


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3009625 - 08/16/04 05:22 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Read what I wrote, Alex.

There is a difference between "economically active" and working your mythical fourteen hour shifts six days a week in a factory. I was "economically active" from age twelve onwards myself.

There are no foreign-owned factories employing twelve year olds in this country. If (and this is a big if) there are any Dominican-owned factories employing twelve year olds, they would probably be relatives of the owners and/or higher-ups given a joe-job (such as running out for food and coffee etc. or maybe sweeping out the parking lot) out of nepotism.

I will admit I have very occasionally seen the son of the owner of our local grocery store bagging groceries in the afternoons and on weekends, and he might be as young as twelve years old. Are grocery stores now also to be considered "sweatshops"?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3009633 - 08/16/04 05:23 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

You accept sweatshop labour throughout the third world involves child labour? So what were you defending when you defending sweatshop labour? Some version that only exists in your mind?

try to follow me here...

"sweatshop labor" in the third world admittedly contains elements such as child labor, violent union-breaking, and a lack of government regulation of wages and hours.

these elements are borne of the same cause, that being a general lack of government enforcement of any standards, due or undue, in the market.

these elements share the same cause; they are not dependent conditions. child labor and violent strike breaking are not caused by low wages and long working hours, and it is therefore not inconsistant to advocate free-market wages and hours while at the same time opposing child labor or forceful anti-union activities.

please construct an argument depicting the causal link between a lack of a minimum wage and child labor. i'd love to see it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3010538 - 08/16/04 09:45 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I started working at the age of 10. Me and a friend from down the street would do yardwork for the neighbors. I suppose that made me "economically active". I also got my first real job at 14. I wonder how many of those "economically active" children were simply doing the same thing that I did?

EDIT: I just saw pink's post so I guess mine is a little redundant.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Edited by z@z.com (08/16/04 09:46 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3010614 - 08/16/04 10:01 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I don't think he tries. It just comes naturally.

What happened to you silver? You were so nice for those two weeks after you had that mushroom trip that you claimed "enlightened" you. I was really impressed. Now you're back making pissy comments to complete strangers on the internet. What went wrong? Didn't the enlightenment thing work out?



I'm not falling for that one again, Alex. I'm simply making an observation of your posting style. And if I were you, I wouldn't be one to talk about pissy comments.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3011622 - 08/17/04 01:58 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

"sweatshop labor" in the third world admittedly contains elements such as child labor, violent union-breaking, and a lack of government regulation of wages and hours.

And you agree that far right libertarians on the board have defended sweatshop labour?

these elements are borne of the same cause, that being a general lack of government enforcement of any standards, due or undue, in the market

But isn't your idea to reduce government influence and give "the market" more power? Why do you think the markets would dispense with child labour when it creates enormous profit for them? That would be ridiculous.

it is therefore not inconsistant to advocate free-market wages and hours while at the same time opposing child labor or forceful anti-union activities.

Profits are greater utilising child labour and brutally suppressing unions. How do you increase the power of the "free market" while getting rid of those features that make the most enormous profits? Especially when you've demolished all government inteference? The market WILL utilise child labour because profits are greater, it is easier to intimidate and brutalise little girls etc. Are you now saying you don't want to see a "free market" at all but "government interference"?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3011639 - 08/17/04 02:03 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Looks like we can safely say the enlightenment thing didn't work out. Takes a bit more work than just a shroom trip doesn't it.  :smirk:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 30 days
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3011643 - 08/17/04 02:04 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

to the libertarians--from a laissez-faire and non-interventionist point of view, should the U.S. government make laws against U.S. corporations using sweatshops in other countries where there is child labor (and i mean real sweatshop labor, not this mowing the lawn and delivering newspapers shit)?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3012408 - 08/17/04 09:43 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

And you agree that far right libertarians on the board have defended sweatshop labour?

they've advocated certain parts of it. why is it impossible to advocate the removal of controls on wages and hours, other price controls, subsidies, and excessive licensing, while maintaining a prohibition on child labor, slavery, extortion, fraud, theft, etc.?

But isn't your idea to reduce government influence and give "the market" more power?

no, the idea has never been to completely remove the government from the market. the idea is to limit the government's actions in the marketplace to the use of defensive force.

libertarians oppose the initiation of force. preventing theft, fraud, slavery, extortion, the murder of one's competition, violent strike breaking, child labor, excessive pollution, etc., are all legitimate government actions that are supported by libertarians and lassiez-faire capitalists alike.

Profits are greater utilising child labour and brutally suppressing unions. How do you increase the power of the "free market" while getting rid of those features that make the most enormous profits?

huh? the market can do just fine with unions and without child labor. what are you trying to say?

Especially when you've demolished all government inteference? The market WILL utilise child labour because profits are greater, it is easier to intimidate and brutalise little girls etc.

sheesh alex. i thought you'd been hear long enough to comprehend what libertarians and lassiez-faire capitalists are calling for. i perfectly understand what people will do in the absence of government enforcement. that is not, and has never been, what i or anyone else here has called for.

what the libertarians call for is limiting the government to keeping the peace, allowing people to make only free, voluntary transactions in the market, hence "free market". it has never been about turning the market into an anarchic free-for-all where those willing to use child labor, slavery, theft, murder, and extortion are free to do as they wish.

Are you now saying you don't want to see a "free market" at all but "government interference"?

for it to be a free market, the government must do things like protect people from violence, prevent the exploitation of children, and enforce contracts. a market in which there is slavery, violent strike breaking, and extortion is not a free market at all.


Edited by mushmaster (08/17/04 09:58 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Tao]
    #3012486 - 08/17/04 10:18 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

to the libertarians--from a laissez-faire and non-interventionist point of view, should the U.S. government make laws against U.S. corporations using sweatshops in other countries where there is child labor

that's a tough question with a lot of closely related questions that i'm sure you can think of. while i'm leaning toward "yes", i have to admit that enforcement would be quite difficult in some cases...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3012622 - 08/17/04 11:03 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Alex, being against the initiation of force means just that. It does not matter if the force is initiated by a government a private individual or a corporation. It can not be stated any more simply than that. If you are unable to grasp that concept, you are beyond all hope of engaging in rational discourse. Your repeated use of logical fallacies as an argument technique does not serve to strengthen your position.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Tao]
    #3012653 - 08/17/04 11:13 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
to the libertarians--from a laissez-faire and non-interventionist point of view, should the U.S. government make laws against U.S. corporations using sweatshops in other countries where there is child labor (and i mean real sweatshop labor, not this mowing the lawn and delivering newspapers shit)?



Just as there are prohibitions domestically against receiving stolen goods, there should be prohibitions against property aquired through illicit means from all sources. That the property should come from forced labor in China or the forced labor of U.S. inmates incarcerated for victimless crimes does not negate the justification of these prohibitions.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3012780 - 08/17/04 11:59 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

huh? the market can do just fine with unions and without child labor.

So why isn't it doing so right now throughout the third world?

Profits are higher without unions and with child labour. The market will demand child labour and union-busting. Just like it did in the 19th century when they had a free hand to conduct business however they wanted.

it has never been about turning the market into an anarchic free-for-all where those willing to use child labor, slavery, theft, murder, and extortion are free to do as they wish.

And yet even with government controls at the level they are now the corporations still ignore and pay off government inteference. Are you saying we will need to give the governments even more power than they have now? I've never heard a libertarian say that before.

for it to be a free market, the government must do things like protect people from violence, prevent the exploitation of children, and enforce contracts. a market in which there is slavery

Where are you getting your definition of the free market from? The defintion of a free market is an economic system that operates according to the laws of supply and demand without government interference. What definition are you using?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3013586 - 08/17/04 02:54 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

why is it impossible to advocate the removal of controls on wages and hours, other price controls, subsidies, and excessive licensing, while maintaining a prohibition on child labor, slavery, extortion, fraud, theft, etc.?

One teensy problem I see with this mush is the day your fine upstanding libertarian government comes to power in some third world country and says "We will introduce workers rights and end child labour by September 27". Come September 26 every single corporation will have moved production out of there and into another country with a corrupt right-wing dictator who will gladly help them crush unions and put little girls to work.

For your ideas to work does it mean every country on earth has to convert to far right libertarianism at the same time? Jeez. And you talk about communism being impractical..


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3015518 - 08/17/04 10:19 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
And you agree that far right libertarians on the board have defended sweatshop labour?




No person who truely follows the credos outlined and pertaining to libertarianism would support "sweat shop labor", in the true sense of the phrase. Since you seem to think that having any child under 18 working any sort of job in a third world nation automatically equates to slave labor, you are mudding the waters of the issue. What do YOU define a "sweat shop" as?
Quote:


But isn't your idea to reduce government influence and give "the market" more power? Why do you think the markets would dispense with child labour when it creates enormous profit for them? That would be ridiculous.




People have morals, thats why. If you look at the way that American businesses treat their employees it doesn't reflect this Oliver Twist-esque fantasy that you are describing. Wouldn't not offering benefits such as, say, tuition reimbursement make more money? Then why do most companies do it?
Quote:


Profits are greater utilising child labour and brutally suppressing unions.




I don't even know if thats true. I don't think that a 12 year old child would be capable of performing certain tasks as well as a 20 year old. I still would like a definition, your definition, of a sweat shop.
Quote:


How do you increase the power of the "free market" while getting rid of those features that make the most enormous profits?




I don't think that companies, for the most part, really try to use sweat shop labor. They might outsource it to another country where the costs owuld be lower, but I think that most of them would express the same moral repugnancy at forcing children to work in horrible conditions
Quote:


Especially when you've demolished all government inteference? The market WILL utilise child labour because profits are greater, it is easier to intimidate and brutalise little girls etc.




If employers are so anxious to cut costs in any way possible, why are they offering incentives that are unnecessary, such as the aforementioned benefits?
Quote:


Are you now saying you don't want to see a "free market" at all but "government interference"?



In a "free market", if a child had the desire, or need, to work in a clothing factory, they'd be allowed to do so, but a company wouldn't be allowed to force htem into it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3015527 - 08/17/04 10:21 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Looks like we can safely say the enlightenment thing didn't work out. Takes a bit more work than just a shroom trip doesn't it.  :smirk:



If you've done shrooms, I can say with certainty that they do not automatically lead to enlightenment.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3016372 - 08/18/04 01:53 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

No person who truely follows the credos outlined and pertaining to libertarianism would support "sweat shop labor", in the true sense of the phrase.

So you don't believe it is a persons "right" to choose to work in a sweatshop if they want to? That certainly isn't the view expressed by the far right libertarians on the board.

People have morals, thats why

So why do american corporations employ children and non-unionised labour all around the world?

If you look at the way that American businesses treat their employees it doesn't reflect this Oliver Twist-esque fantasy that you are describing.

Er..because workers struggled, fought and died for a hundred years to get some rights? Read up on the history of american labour in the 19th century. You'll find it all there - child labour, breaking unions etc.

I don't even know if thats true

So why do you think american corporations relocate to third world countries and use child labour?

I still would like a definition, your definition, of a sweat shop.

Check out the definition in any dictionary. That will be fine by me. What is your definition of one?

I don't think that companies, for the most part, really try to use sweat shop labor.

But somehow, by accident, they do?

They might outsource it to another country where the costs owuld be lower, but I think that most of them would express the same moral repugnancy at forcing children to work in horrible conditions

But not enough repugnancy to say to the subcontractors, "stop employing the kids, give them union rights, spend money giving them safe working conditions, make their hours reasonable, pay them a living wage. We'll foot the bill"?

If employers are so anxious to cut costs in any way possible, why are they offering incentives that are unnecessary, such as the aforementioned benefits?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Why do you think corporations use sweatshop labour if not to cut costs?

In a "free market", if a child had the desire, or need, to work in a clothing factory, they'd be allowed to do so, but a company wouldn't be allowed to force htem into it.

That's not what mushmaster has been saying - he says child labour would be banned in a free market.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3016420 - 08/18/04 02:05 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

If you've done shrooms

No need to look at me, look at yourself.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3016462 - 08/18/04 02:13 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Alex123 invites us to use the dictionary definition of any dictionary when discussing sweatshops, even though he has made it abundantly clear that in in his mind an essential definition of a sweatshop is that it must employ twelve year old girls, force employees to work fourteen (or more... depending on which post of his you choose) hour shifts, cheat employees out of overtime hours, violently suppress union organizers etc, etc,

Okay, Alex... here is the very first dictionary site I came across when I typed "dictionary" into Google -- dictionary.com. I then typed "sweatshop" into their search field, and this is what it delivered:

Quote:

A shop or factory in which employees work long hours at low wages under poor conditions.

The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.





Do we see mention of the employment of pre-adolescent children? Nope. Union-busting? Nope. Fraudulent withholding of overtime hours? Nope.

So from here on in, we have Alex123's express blessing to define "sweatshop" as specified above. This means we don't have to read any more straw dog logical fallacies about 12 year old girls, anti-union headbashers, toxic waste running across the sandalled (or bare) feet of employees, etc.

Congratulations to all who stayed the course. Savor this accomplishment. It likely won't soon be repeated.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
    #3017221 - 08/18/04 08:57 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Alex123 and others,

Answer a simple question:

Why is it that the 10-12 year old working in a factory is "Child Labor" and "Exploitive", but the 10-12 year old knocking on your door offering to mow your yard for $20 (when the lawn service charges $40) is a "Enterprising young man" or "A young man learning the value of a buck?"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Cyber]
    #3017240 - 08/18/04 09:20 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Probably because the "enterprising young man" can go to the bathroom whenever he likes and take a break from 100 degree heat whenever he likes, while he's 'on the job.'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3017501 - 08/18/04 11:22 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Max Headroom said:
Probably because the "enterprising young man" can go to the bathroom whenever he likes and take a break from 100 degree heat whenever he likes, while he's 'on the job.'



Wouldn't that depend on the person hiring him?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
    #3017537 - 08/18/04 11:39 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Do we see mention of the employment of pre-adolescent children? Nope.

Depends who the "employees" are doesn't it.

Union-busting? Nope. Fraudulent withholding of overtime hours? Nope.

Excuse me, but what is your point? Are you trying to deny these conditions exist in sweatshops?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Cyber]
    #3017575 - 08/18/04 11:50 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Why is it that the 10-12 year old working in a factory is "Child Labor" and "Exploitive"

So you don't think children working in factories is child labour? Would you like to see one of your children working there?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3017625 - 08/18/04 12:01 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

It certainly would. I don't see a problem with 12 year olds working in factories as long as they are there because they want to be and are treated well.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 30 days
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3017655 - 08/18/04 12:07 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

60-80 hr weeks vs. 2 hr weeks.---that's another one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Tao]
    #3019040 - 08/18/04 05:23 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

?Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
employment, to just and favourable conditions of work. . .Everyone
has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social service.? - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3019568 - 08/18/04 07:19 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

So why isn't it doing so right now throughout the third world?

are you suggesting that the reason the third world is so poor is because they lack powerful unions and minimum wage laws?

more colored paper would lift them out of poverty?

please alex. they are poor because there aren't enough goods and services produced. the reason for this is lack of capital accumulation.

Are you saying we will need to give the governments even more power than they have now? I've never heard a libertarian say that before.

well, we're talking about the third world, where many governments are unable or unwilling to do what is required of them; that is, keep the peace... therefore even a libertarian would suggest that they need to amplify and probably realign their enforcement efforts so that unions may organize, young children aren't used as laborers, etc.

Where are you getting your definition of the free market from? The defintion of a free market is an economic system that operates according to the laws of supply and demand without government interference.

a free market is an environment where people may enter into voluntary exchanges, and only voluntary exchanges. it is not a market free of "government influence" but force. a system in which the government has absolutely nothing to do with the market, and theives run unfettered, is not free. a system where the government enforces contracts and prevents violence or fraud is a free market, and this is the system that you are well aware that libertarians call for.

a situation where young girls are forcibly held to work as prostitutes, young boys are made to work in the cane fields, unionizing efforts are violently suppressed, dumping is rampant, extortion commonplace, and "business" killings frequent is not a free market, and no libertarian has ever called for such an arrangement. the government must prevent the initiation of force and maintain an environment where people may make voluntary exchanges. THAT is a free market.


Edited by mushmaster (08/18/04 08:33 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3019600 - 08/18/04 07:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

so let's see where we are here...

you claimed to have heard "many" instances of libertarians supporting child labor on this board.

when you were asked to provide an example, you did not, but instead tried to dodge the issue by aparently suggesting that libertarians, by supporting the removal of minimum wage laws and the like, must also support child labor. (correct me if i'm wrong here... was that the argument?)

do you believe that it is possible to support the removal of price controls, excessive licensing regulations, and controls on working hours, without supporting child labor? if not....

why not?

now this thread has gone on for quite a while and you've scarcely made any attempt at all to show the causal relationship between supporting the removal of things like price controls and subsidies, and actually supporting the use of children as factory workers.

i ask again...

do you believe that it is possible to support the removal of price controls, excessive licensing regulations, and controls on working hours, without supporting child labor? if not....

why?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3020240 - 08/18/04 10:03 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
So you don't believe it is a persons "right" to choose to work in a sweatshop if they want to? That certainly isn't the view expressed by the far right libertarians on the board.




Sure, if they so choose, then they can. You keep juxtaposing the words "sweat shop" and "child labor" when in fact they are two different things. Children around where I live, especially those of the Mennonite faith, work harder on their farms than most people will work in their entire lives. They aren't, to loosely quote pinksharkmark, being tied to a sewing machine for 18 hours a day, they are working a job which they receive benefit from. I think that people have asked you to post a link where people said that they do think that children should be working in "sweatshops" and I haven't seen a link yet, so I can't be sure that you aren't mix-n-matching the terms "child labor" and "sweat shop".  If a child in some third world nation can go to work, voluntarily, for a salary that seems meager and sad to us, but can help support her family with it, then thats fine. I think that the limited governmental regulation would be to ensure that the working conditions are safe.  For example, a 10 year old child wouldn't be put to work breaking rocks, or working in an unsafe factory.
Quote:


So why do american corporations employ children and non-unionised labour all around the world?




Employing children isn't necessarily sweat shop labor. Even though you seem to have a different political standpoing from pinksharkmark, and it seems some personal issues as well, I think he is in an excellent position to give information about the state of child labor in third world nations.  From his first-person account, and nothing that you've posted shows different, these children aren't being snapped off of the streets and chained to their sewing machine. They work to provide for their families.  If someone can get labor cheaper somewhere else, I don't see that a true libertarian would institute force to make them not do so.
Quote:


Er..because workers struggled, fought and died for a hundred years to get some rights? Read up on the history of american labour in the 19th century. You'll find it all there - child labour, breaking unions etc.




I think that most American corporations now realize that it's much more efficient to have a workforce that is happy and enjoys their jobs than having a cadre of slaves in their dynamite shops.  With the changing of times, people aren't forced to work in the single steel mill or coal mine in their town.  They can easily drive two towns over, or two hours away, and work in a nice office at a place that does give great benefits and cares about their employee.  A book that I've read that helps me in dealing with my employees (even though I'm sure that they'd tell you I'm a slave driver! :wink: ) is "The Employee Comes First" (or maybe it's called "Putting the customer second").  The basic premise, and one that I wholeheartedly with, is that when you focus on your employees and make the work environment as positive as possible, the effects trickle down.
Quote:


So why do you think american corporations relocate to third world countries and use child labour? 




Because it's much cheaper, of course. I just don't see anything wrong with a voluntary transaction. If these people don't want to work at Plant X, they can start their own company.

The basic premise of libertarianism is that force not be initated against people unless necessary, usually in response to force.  How can you say, or imply, that your views are libertarianistic while at the same time wanting to force people to partake in voluntary agreements the way that you want them to?
Quote:


Check out the definition in any dictionary. That will be fine by me. What is your definition of one?




sweat?shop    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (swtshp)
n.
A shop or factory in which employees work long hours at low wages under poor conditions.

Most of these terms are somewhat subjective. "long hours" is laughable when I spend more than half of my time working, "low wages" is what every worker that you question will tell you that they are making. however, the poor conditions, thats where the government steps in. If the conditions are safe, then it's the decision of the people to work there or not. If noone is being forced to do anything, it's libertarianism at it's heart.
Quote:


But somehow, by accident, they do?




Show me that they use "sweat shop" labor, rather than "child labor".
Quote:


But not enough repugnancy to say to the subcontractors, "stop employing the kids, give them union rights, spend money giving them safe working conditions, make their hours reasonable, pay them a living wage. We'll foot the bill"?




Er, no. Why would a company do that? If they were saying to the sub contractors "go out, kidnap a gaggle of strong looking lads, and force them to work until their fingers bleed", I'd say it's time for intervention. If they post job openings that are filled with youth acting on a volunteer basis, whats the big deal?
Quote:


That's not what mushmaster has been saying - he says child labour would be banned in a free market.



I thought I rememberd him saying something about having a job when he was 14? "child labor" is such a vast subjective word that it's hard to tell what you mean. Should children not have to work on thei rparents farms? I'd say that they should, thought to a limit of course. should children be forced to work in gulags day in and day out? No. If it involves the word "force", a true libertarian woudl say "no". If it doesn't involve that concept of making an individual or group do something against their will, then I'd say that a libertarian would be for it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3020297 - 08/18/04 10:13 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

however, the poor conditions, thats where the government steps in. If the conditions are safe, then it's the decision of the people to work there or not.

i've got to point out that this isn't entirely true. people may work in dangerous conditions, so long as they are aware of the risks and freely decide to accept them.

some people choose to work as roofers or in construction. some cut timber. some choose to be crab fishermen off the coast of alaska. some work in mines. some work in steel mills.

there will always be dangerous occupations. i've never heard of a libertarian suggesting that the government enforce a law mandating that conditions at all workplaces be made safe. this isn't something that the government can or should do.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3020312 - 08/18/04 10:17 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
i've got to point out that this isn't entirely true. people may work in dangerous conditions, so long as they are aware of the risks and freely decide to accept them.




Good point. I think that their should remain some regulation as to where children can and can't work. When I was 12 I was working on my uncles golf course making 2$/hour. Hot hot work, lots of physical labor, but I still wasn't allowed to use certain things.
Quote:


there will always be dangerous occupations. i've never heard of a libertarian suggesting that the government enforce a law mandating that conditions at all workplaces be made safe. this isn't something that the government can or should do.



Do you think that a law requiring, say, inspections of forklifts and adherence to saftey practise with them would be a goodidea?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3020382 - 08/18/04 10:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Do you think that a law requiring, say, inspections of forklifts and adherence to saftey practise with them would be a goodidea?

what sort of inspections and safety regulations?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3021417 - 08/19/04 01:56 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

are you suggesting that the reason the third world is so poor is because they lack powerful unions and minimum wage laws?

No, read it again. I'm saying if corporations can do without child labour and banning unions why arn't they doing it right now?

they are poor because there aren't enough goods and services produced

Are you trying to say they are poor because they don't have enough sweatshops? Please.

therefore even a libertarian would suggest that they need to amplify and probably realign

Try to stick to something that vaguely resembles reality. A government introduces the right to form unions, the corporations shift production to a country that has banned unions. How do you stop this?

a system where the government enforces contracts and prevents violence or fraud is a free market, and this is the system that you are well aware that libertarians call for.

Calling for it is very nice. You can call for eternal peace and love too if you like. Try and give me an example in reality where a government can enforces the right to a union without the corporation simply moving production to another country.

and no libertarian has ever called for such an arrangement

Then you and every far right libertarian are utterly and totally against any sweatshop labour where unions are intimidated? Good. You agree with any campaign to get rid of sweatshop labour throughout the third world where unions are banned?

THAT is a free market.

Well, it's your version of a free market. I'm sure the heads of corporations using sweatshop labour would say they are operating in a free market fashion too.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3021473 - 08/19/04 02:08 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

so let's see where we are here...

You mean where you are. You are in a very different place to the rest of us.

you claimed to have heard "many" instances of libertarians supporting child labor on this board.

I'll try and explain this slowly once more for the gipper...You are claiming you have never heard an example of anyone on this board defending sweatshop labour in the third world. You claim that when anyone has ever defended sweatshop labour they actually meant only sweatshop labour that is carried out without child labour, with full union rights, full workers rights, with excellent safety conditions and working conditions.

That is your position? Can you tell me a sweatshop where those conditions exist? Otherwise your "point" is utterly ridiculous.

when you were asked to provide an example, you did not, but instead tried to dodge the issue by aparently suggesting that libertarians, by supporting the removal of minimum wage laws and the like, must also support child labor.

Where did I do this? Where have I mentioned the minimum wage? Are you thinking of another thread?

You appear to be saying that in your free market fantasy the "government" will enforce rules against child labour and unions. You have so far dodged all attempts to explain why the corporations wouldn't simply move production to a country where they can make larger profits using child labour and banning unions. Please do so.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3022242 - 08/19/04 07:42 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

You are claiming you have never heard an example of anyone on this board defending sweatshop labour in the third world.

i've heard people defend free market wages, even if they are very low. i've never heard of anyone defending child labor.

Where did I do this? Where have I mentioned the minimum wage? Are you thinking of another thread?

no, i'm just trying to figure out what your argument is. it's quite a task. if child labor is a required feature of "sweatshop" labor, (the dictionary doesn't say that it is) then no libertarian has defended sweatshop labor. it's that simple.

You appear to be saying that in your free market fantasy the "government" will enforce rules against child labour and unions.

why is that a fantasy? why can't the government enforce such rules while refraining from enacting price controls, tariffs, and the like?

You have so far dodged all attempts to explain why the corporations wouldn't simply move production to a country where they can make larger profits using child labour and banning unions. Please do so.

please explain how your solution would address this problem. please explain how enforcing not only protection for unions, and prohibition of child labor, but also minimum wage laws and regulations on working hours wouldn't drive capital away even faster.

did you miss my question. i asked it twice because i figured you might. for the third time:

do you believe that it is possible to support the removal of price controls, excessive licensing regulations, and controls on working hours, without supporting child labor? if not....

why?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3022670 - 08/19/04 11:48 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

it's quite a task.

The lets simplify it. You come to power in your libertarian paradise. You tell the corporations you are banning all child labour, introducing union rights, working rights, decent working conditions and safety procedures. The corporations reply that you are making things "uncompetitive" and that you can go fuck yourself. They are moving production to a more "competitive" country where they can use child labour and dispense with unions.

What do you do?

please explain how enforcing not only protection for unions, and prohibition of child labor, but also minimum wage laws and regulations on working hours wouldn't drive capital away even faster.

Eh? Banning child labour is going to drive "capital" away to a country where they can exploit children. That is what I have been telling you for the last 5 pages. Your first argument in this thread was that capital will cope perfectly well without child labour and with powerful unions. Have you abandoned that idea?

why is that a fantasy?

Because greater profits can be made using child labour and banning unions than without.

why can't the government enforce such rules while refraining from enacting price controls, tariffs, and the like?

Because the corporations will simply shift production to another country.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3022752 - 08/19/04 12:12 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Alex, why is there more American investment in Canada(with minimum wage laws, child protection, strong unions, etc.) than in ALL of Sub-Saharan Africa(poverty stricken area with a multitude of child labor and a lack of union strength)? There are other factors at work in the economic world than wages. Output per person in developing nations is often a small fraction of what it is in more developed western nations. If there were NO draw factors for a corporation to maintain manufacturing centers in the United States and other 1st world nations, clearly our manufacturing sector would be non-existant.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3022757 - 08/19/04 12:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

There are other factors at work in the economic world than wages.

I agree with you.

If there were NO draw factors for a corporation to maintain manufacturing centers in the United States and other 1st world nations, clearly our manufacturing sector would be non-existant.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic of corporations using non-unionised sweatshop labour throughout the third world.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3022769 - 08/19/04 12:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

alex, we're not talking about how to solve the problem of capital flight when worker's rights start to be enforced. (how would you solve that problem?)

i'm asking you why you apparently feel that libertarians support child labor. could you please explain what led you to believe that libertarians support child labor?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3022794 - 08/19/04 12:27 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

alex, we're not talking about how to solve the problem of capital flight when worker's rights start to be enforced

We were until I demolished your theory that you could introduce controls on "free market" capitalism.

i'm asking you why you apparently feel that libertarians support child labor.

Because the kind of free market capitalism you worship makes such heavy use of it throughout the third world? Or are you talking about a version of free market capitalism that only exists in your mind?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3022803 - 08/19/04 12:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

We were until I demolished your theory that you could introduce controls on "free market" capitalism.

:rotfl:

Because the kind of free market capitalism you worship makes such heavy use of it throughout the third world?

huh? free market capitalism is not what they have in the third world.

Or are you talking about a version of free market capitalism that only exists in your mind? If you are, you'll have to explain a little more about what's going on in your mind.

does the exact version of socialism you propose exist anywhere in the world?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3022807 - 08/19/04 12:30 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
We were until I demolished your theory that you could introduce controls on "free market" capitalism.

:rotfl:



My thoughts exactly.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3022847 - 08/19/04 12:37 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Come on mush, quit chuckling and give us the answer to how you introduce workers rights in free market capitalism.

huh? free market capitalism is not what they have in the third world.

Really? So all the talk we here about free markets is just hot air?

does the exact version of socialism you propose exist anywhere in the world?

Come on, we're not talking about the "exact version", we're talking about stopping kids being brutalised and intimidated in sweatshops. If your free market can't even begin to address that right now then it belongs in the toilet.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3022857 - 08/19/04 12:39 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

My thoughts exactly.

We'd all love an on-topic thought from you silver. Anything rather than following me around the threads hoping to get a pissy remark in  :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3022867 - 08/19/04 12:41 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)


Come on mush, quit chuckling and give us the answer to how you introduce workers rights in free market capitalism.


i have. you ban the initiation of force in the course of business practices. some businesses may flee elsewhere, but at least those that remain will be ethical establishments. the alternative would be.......?

Really? So all the talk we here about free markets is just hot air?

it is indeed. i've never suggested that the third world is an example of free-market capitalism. it's not.

If your free market can't even begin to address that right now then it belongs in the toilet.

it addresses it as well as any domestic policy can: it prohibits it. you either allow it or you prohibit it. what is your solution? would you allow or prohibit child labor?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3024805 - 08/19/04 07:58 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Since you, Alex, haven't replied to my post yet, I'll just keep analyzing yours. I'm assuming that you are strapped for time, rather than simply debating who you choose, rather than all those that might disagree with you
Quote:


Try to stick to something that vaguely resembles reality. A government introduces the right to form unions, the corporations shift production to a country that has banned unions. How do you stop this?




How would YOU stop it without the "initation of force"? All that we can do, without using interventionistic tactics on foreign nations which I'm sure you'd disagree with, would be to ensure that the companies within our borders were following the moral way to do things.
Quote:


Calling for it is very nice. You can call for eternal peace and love too if you like. Try and give me an example in reality where a government can enforces the right to a union without the corporation simply moving production to another country.




Hm. Steel workers union, UAW, and the thousands of other unions that are in America. Examples given.
Quote:


Then you and every far right libertarian are utterly and totally against any sweatshop labour where unions are intimidated? Good. You agree with any campaign to get rid of sweatshop labour throughout the third world where unions are banned?




Why do you keep going back to this as-yet undefined sweatshop labor? Didn't PinkSharkMark specifically state that he was against this sort of sweatshop labor that you keep alluding to, while never defining? If they want to ban unions, thats the business of the company, not of mine. If they want to use force to prevent the people from being in a union, then it's not good. Refer to my comment about how things that involve at their root the use of force would be against libertarian values. Why is it that al ibertarian that adheres to true libertariansim is a "right wing" libertarian, while your brand, which involves forcing people to do things, is, in your eyes, "true libertarianism". You can't take a philosphy that, seemingly, a large number of people on this board adhere to, change the basic premise and foundaations of it, and make it your own. Doesn't work that way.
Quote:


Well, it's your version of a free market. I'm sure the heads of corporations using sweatshop labour would say they are operating in a free market fashion too.



If these people in the as-yet undefined "sweatshops" aren't being forced to work there, whats the big deal?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3026657 - 08/20/04 02:06 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

How would YOU stop it without the "initation of force"?

Deny them a market? Prevent import of goods produced by child labour to the US? Use tariffs to make it uncompetitive to use non-unionised child labour?

Hm. Steel workers union, UAW, and the thousands of other unions that are in America. Examples given.

Not really. Not every corporation on earth can move abroad. Those that can't have to deal with the reality that american workers have fought for 100 years to gain rights.

Why do you keep going back to this as-yet undefined sweatshop labor?

We defined it about 3 pages ago. You must've missed it.

Didn't PinkSharkMark specifically state that he was against this sort of sweatshop labor that you keep alluding to, while never defining?

I have never heard pinkie "specifically" state anything yet. In the other thread he remarks Stephen Chapman has some valid points in defending the use of child labour. If you can work out his position let us know.

If these people in the as-yet undefined "sweatshops" aren't being forced to work there, whats the big deal?

So you don't mind child labour as long as the children arn't forced to work there. Fair enough. Why didn't you just say this 5 pages ago?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3028243 - 08/20/04 01:12 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

did you miss my last post?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3028734 - 08/20/04 04:01 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I'd take Badnarik seriously if he didn't throw hissy fits over zip codes or didn't have insane ideas about prisoners, etc.. (as you'll see below)

Even by Libertarian standards Badnarik is out waay there. I agree with some libertarian philosophy, some. But the more i read about this guy, the less i like.

There's a great article in the libertarian mag Liberty about it:
Quote:

Dark Horse on the Third Ballot
The Libertarian Party nominates a candidate without knowing his views or knowing about his brushes with the law.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html

....Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com. It features an introduction by Congressman Ron Paul and Badnarik's theory about taxes. His campaign website included a potpourri of right-wing constitutional positions, as well as some very unorthodox views on various issues. He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate. In one especially picturesque proposal, he wrote:
Quote:


I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535members would be required to sit through a special version of myConstitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congressunderstood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I wouldinsist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.






One assumes, although one cannot prove, that none of this is an exercise in irony. At any rate, these opinions were removed from the website shortly after he won the nomination, and they didn't come up when he visited state party conventions. Nor did his refusal to file tax returns, thereby risking federal indictment and felony arrest. While many of his closest supporters were aware of these issues, they were unknown to most LP members.



The man refuses to use ZIP codes. Read the whole thing and weep. Well, laugh, more likely.


Edited by DigitalDuality (08/20/04 04:08 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3028817 - 08/20/04 04:22 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

have. you ban the initiation of force in the course of business practices

Give me concrete measures. Not half-baked theories. You tell the corporations to follow measure that cut their profits, they tell you to fuck off. What do you do next?

it is indeed

hmm..I'm sure there's an awful lot of economists who disagree about whether or not free market measure have been introduced. Particularly the world banks "work" in Argentina and Indonesia.

i've never suggested that the third world is an example of free-market capitalism

But you do agree certain free market measures have been introduced throughout the third world?

what is your solution?

Reject free market capitalism? Deny them "free markets"? Tell Nike -"Use child labour and the only people you're going to be able to sell those shoes to is the kids you pay 10 bucks a month".

would you allow or prohibit child labor?

Why allow it? Is there such a terrible shortage of adults who could do the work? They couldn't pay three, four, five times as much to an adult and still make astronomical profits? Hell, the adult could even pay for his kids to get an education then.

Why do you think these corporations hire young girls? Why don't they hire 25 year old men? They do so because little girls are easier to intimidate, pay less, punish, and terrify if one suggests union rights. Does that sound like a good thing to you?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3029578 - 08/20/04 07:38 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

You tell the corporations to follow measure that cut their profits, they tell you to fuck off. What do you do next?

umm... start arresting people?

what would you have the government do when businesses defy regulations?

hmm..I'm sure there's an awful lot of economists who disagree about whether or not free market measure have been introduced.

oh i'm sure some free market measures exist. there are some free market measures in cuba. some free market measures exist everywhere you go. that doesn't make it a free market.

But you do agree certain free market measures have been introduced throughout the third world?

obviously. see response to previous statement.

Deny them "free markets"? Tell Nike -"Use child labour and the only people you're going to be able to sell those shoes to is the kids you pay 10 bucks a month".

wait a minute here... why does it work when you tell businesses not to exploit children, but it doesn't work when i do?

Why allow it?

i don't know alex. you're the one that's been going on about businesses packing up and moving away, or measures being impossible to enforce... i've been saying all along that child labor should generally be prohibited, and you've been attacking my statements at every turn...


Edited by mushmaster (08/20/04 07:44 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3029678 - 08/20/04 08:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
wait a minute here... why does it work when you tell businesses not to exploit children, but it doesn't work when i do?



Cuz you're a dirty neocon repoop. :smirk:


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3029701 - 08/20/04 08:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Quote:

mushmaster said:
wait a minute here... why does it work when you tell businesses not to exploit children, but it doesn't work when i do?



Cuz you're a dirty neocon repoop. :smirk:


:cheers:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3029963 - 08/20/04 09:19 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

....Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years.



While he has cleared up the issue with the IRS, and therefore there is no legal problem here, Michael is doing nothing more than practicing what he preaches. There was a huge controversey over the 16th Amendment(which SUPPOSEDLY conveys the power to tax income...) in which the ratification votes of states were counted wrongly. A state, apparently, could vote either YES(to ratify), NO(to deny ratification), or PASS(to give neither approval nor disapproval, but to not add to the amendment's votes). From what I have heard, there were not enough YES votes to ratify so under some ridiculous interpretation of law, the PASS's were counted as YES's. In addition, a high court ruled after the amendment was 'passed' that the 16th amendment gave the federal government no new power.

Quote:

but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine.



Again, practicing what he preaches. It seems as if he has and is paying the price, so to speak, for his stalwart attachment to libertarian and american values.

Quote:

He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."



Michael has dismissed this claim time and time again, and has dismissed it as recently as this week on a radio show that I can link to you if you wish. The confusion here is because Michael once mused(not sure where) that a stealth bill passed in the mid 20th century may have been worded as such that all areas under zip codes are regarded as federal territory. As the constitution grants unlimited(dictatorial) powers to congress with regard to federal territories, Michael being skeptic libertarian that he is, was merely expounding on the potential issue. He has and does use zip codes, was just something blown out of proportion.

Quote:

He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com.



Would just like to add here that before Michael was nominated as LP candidate for the presidency he was dirt fucking poor. For the year before the nominating convention he did drive around 'campaigning' across the country, trying to spread the libertarian message via personal visits and his constitution class, living off what meager income he made from that class and from supporter donations. Despite how poor Michael was, he again never broke from principle as he missed out on a TON of money he could have gotten from his constitution class. For the class Michael categorically refused to accept 'worthless' federal reserve notes, and as a first act of constitutionality, he required that those who desired the class pay in commodity-based currency, most commonly Liberty Dollars(which for the record, had to be gotten from someone other than Michael).

Quote:

He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards



This is also a mix of something that was not wholly serious in origin being blown out of proportion. Michael does not believe and has never said that prisoners should be tied down to a bed until their muscles atrophy. He merely feels that prisoners should be deprived of much of the weight-lifting and other excercise they are offered today and should instead be required to do things that are less conducive to violent physical behavior(reading, television, etc). Do you really think it's a good idea for violent convicts to be spending 8 hours a day lifting weights?

Quote:

to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate.



Really a shame that I'm having to pick apart this article right now since the vast majority of the libertarian community already did it when the article came out. This statement was made COMPLETELY IN HUMOR. Michael is, like almost all libertarians, extremely opposed to United States involvment in the United Nations and would push for our exit from it if elected President. He has no intention of having the building imploded(or on top of that, imploding it himself)...he has stated himself, in a serious tone, that the money gained from the sale of the building would be used to pay off the debt.

Quote:


I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535members would be required to sit through a special version of myConstitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congressunderstood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I wouldinsist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.




I don't see any problem with that. The only part of this I don't like is I think it would be, for the most part, an excersise in futility. Most members of congress are beyond hope and the thought that they are supposed to work for the american people, rather than the other way around, is extremely foreign to them.

To sum up this post, that article takes things out of context, makes brilliant use of strong hyperbole, and criticizes a principled libertarian an awful lot for a libertarian publication. Perhaps the author lost a bet on the nominating convention?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3030140 - 08/20/04 10:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
How would YOU stop it without the "initation of force"?

Deny them a market? Prevent import of goods produced by child labour to the US? Use tariffs to make it uncompetitive to use non-unionised child labour?




"deny" "prevent" ? I said "WITHOUT" using force...
Quote:


Not really. Not every corporation on earth can move abroad. Those that can't have to deal with the reality that american workers have fought for 100 years to gain rights.




Did I or did I not answer your post correctly? I gave examples of unions in capitalist societies.
Quote:


We defined it about 3 pages ago. You must've missed it.




If you'll look, I was the first one that posted a reply with the definition in in (possibly the second, after pink shark mark). I'll note that you NEVER gave a definition, either a dictionary one or one of your own.
Quote:


I have never heard pinkie "specifically" state anything yet. In the other thread he remarks Stephen Chapman has some valid points in defending the use of child labour. If you can work out his position let us know.




I'd be happy to. In the post numbered #3009542, pinksharkmark says;
Clearly, from the emphatic nature of this latest post of yours, your position is that a factory cannot be defined as a "sweatshop" unless it employs pre-adolescent children. I will therefore categorically state that as a Laissez-faire Capitalist, I oppose any such "Alex123sweatshopsTM" (sorry -- can't find the key which generates the nifty little "trademark" character).

There, now we have a quote where he says that he is against the still-as-yet undefined sweatshop labor that you refer to. He even gives them an easier handle to use. Happy?
Quote:


So you don't mind child labour as long as the children arn't forced to work there. Fair enough. Why didn't you just say this 5 pages ago?



I like taking the long way around things, sorry if I didn't state my position clearly. When I was 12, I was helping mow the yard (10+ acres, push mower) cleaning my room, helping friends on their farms, and helping my uncle's staff on a golf course in the blistering North Carolina heat for the summer. I wasn't "forced" to do it, I was paid appropriate wages for my work, and I'd think that most kids at 12 would be happy to have some spending cash in their pockets for baseball cards, or whatever it is that kids spend their money on nowadays. I'd like to state that I'm opposed, as pinkie stated, to the Alex123SweatShops? that you describe. Noone should be FORCE to do anything, within limits.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3031221 - 08/21/04 03:29 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

"deny" "prevent" ? I said "WITHOUT" using force...

mush has said you fine them. Is that "force" too? How would you stop them using child labour?

I gave examples of unions in capitalist societies.

Yes, unions do exist in capitalist societies. What is your point?

I'll note that you NEVER gave a definition, either a dictionary one or one of your own.

I told you to go to a dictionary and use the definition you see there.

There, now we have a quote where he says that he is against the still-as-yet undefined sweatshop labor that you refer to.

No, he makes a basic error in defining a sweatshop as a place where only pre-adolescent children are employed. Then he makes a predictably vague and meaningless reference about pre-adolescent children. As moronic and irrelevant to the discussion as his "point" about 8 year olds driving forklift trucks.

He even gives them an easier handle to use. Happy?

No, I'd like to know his position on child labour. Can you tell me what it is? Silver failed miserably, maybe you'll have a better time.

Noone should be FORCE to do anything, within limits.

So as long as the children are not "forced" it is ok to employ them in sweatshops. That's your position? Fine.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpaceCadet
Stranger
Registered: 03/10/04
Posts: 15
Loc: Washington
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3031255 - 08/21/04 03:41 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Badnarik would be the best thing for this country. I'd be delighted to have the federal government pretty much gotten rid of. It would make it easier for the workers to seize the means of production without an over-funded bourgeois military in the way.

Badnarik, and many others, seem to have the idea that capitalism and the market economy would flourish without the feds subsidizing it with tax dollars. Economics is such an outrageously flawed social science based on ridiculous logical fallacies(ever hear of a market self-correcting itself?).

If anything, I think the libertarians' worship of 'free market' and privatizing everything in existence would be fantastic and only add momentum to the anticapitalist activist movement. But that's only my own speculation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: SpaceCadet]
    #3031287 - 08/21/04 03:48 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Good point. Certainly the attempt by the world bank to impose free market measures in Argentina and Indonesia has caused complete economic disaster.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3031809 - 08/21/04 09:36 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

have you anything to say in response to my previous post?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3032155 - 08/21/04 12:47 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
mush has said you fine them. Is that "force" too? How would you stop them using child labour?




I wouldn't stop them from using child labor, I'd stop them from FORCING children to work in AlexSweatShops?. Fines are OK. I'm not against the use of force in any situation, I'm against the initation of force against people.
Quote:


Yes, unions do exist in capitalist societies. What is your point?




My point? Well, that your statement-phrased question of "Try and give me an example in reality where a government can enforces the right to a union without the corporation simply moving production to another country." has been answered. Here is where you should say "Oh, thats right. Their are numerous labor unions in countries that give the right for unionization and the Pittsburgh Steel Mills, the Detroit Auto Works, and nunmerous other Union-run organizations still exist in that nation". I proved you wrong, be a man and admit it.
Quote:


I told you to go to a dictionary and use the definition you see there.




One that doesn't mesh with the definition that you've been using. I'll list the definitions in my words of "sweat shop" and "Alex123SweatShop?" (BTW Pink Shark Mark, that is Alt+0153 on my ASCII keyboard).

A "sweat shop" is a workplace where conditions are harsh, hours are long, and the pay isn't exactly what you'd need to retire rich.

An Alex123SweatShop? is a sweatshop in which children are forced to work horrible conditions and where union organizers are introduced into the company-sponsored Doctor Martin Dental Plan.
Quote:


No, he makes a basic error in defining a sweatshop as a place where only pre-adolescent children are employed. Then he makes a predictably vague and meaningless reference about pre-adolescent children. As moronic and irrelevant to the discussion as his "point" about 8 year olds driving forklift trucks.




That was my point, I believe. When you give people the right to make up the definitions that you (still) refuse to provide, you are giving him alot of leeway. You yourself stated that we are to use the dictionary definition of sweat shop, and that doesn't imply or specifically state anything about the age of the employers. I'm sorry if the definition that you asked us to provide isn't the one that you are using. That is why pink shark mark used the contextual information of the posts of yours to make the new phrase "Alex123SweatShop?". If you want us to use the dictionary definition, as you've mentioned four or five times, then you want us to know exactly how you modified that definition for the purpose of discussion, I'm going to have to ask you again to give me YOUR definition, in YOUR own words, of a sweat shop. I've been courteous enough to answer all of your questions, I think, why won't you do the same for pink shark mark and myself? He does state that he is against sweatshops that force children to work, isn't that what a libertarian would say? Do you agree that your statement of "he hasn't specifically said anything yet" is wrong, as he clearly did state he was against hte sort of sweatshop labor that you seem to allude to, without defining still?
Quote:


No, I'd like to know his position on child labour.




flip flop the beat don't stop! Back to my original statement about you juxtaposing statements about "child labor' and "sweat shop" work. Since, by the definition that you told us to get, the dictionary one, a sweat shop isn't necessarily using child labor, it's two different things. From the context of his posts, and I don't mean to give his position and I also admit that I could be wrong about my interpretation fo what he is saying, he isn't, per se, against CHILDREN at WORK. He is against the sweatshop definition that you allude to, but have yet to provide. ALso, don't reply to this with a "well look it up", because he and I both have, and the definition that they gave isn't meshing with your mental image of a sweat shop.
Quote:


Can you tell me what it is? Silver failed miserably, maybe you'll have a better time.




I'm sorry, tell you what what is? PInkSharkMarks position on child labor? I think he specifically mentioned that kids working in their parents shops isn't "sweat shop" labor. Why don't you choose one topic and stick with it? we begin discussing sweat shop labor, then you toss in a bit of child labor, and assume that our opinions are the same about both. They aren't the same thing, not even close to the same thing.

I searched google.com for "what is child labor", and I got the definition of
Quote:


Work performed by children, often under hazardous or exploitative conditions. This does not include all work done by kids: children everywhere, for example, do chores to help their families. The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child calls for protection "against economic exploitation and against carrying out any job that might endanger well-being or educational opportunities, or that might be harmful to health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development" (Article 32).




If a job involves a child, say, using an iron brazer, I'd probably be against my child doing it. However, I've seen 10 year old Mennonite children around here using bulldozers and such with a skill level that would earn them 40$ an hour on the open market. Again, no force, no foul.
Quote:


So as long as the children are not "forced" it is ok to employ them in sweatshops. That's your position? Fine.



Child labor doesn't equate to sweat shop labor. Can you see that single truth? If a child works at a "factory" doing "long hours" for "low wages" at "poor conditions", but in doing so they manage to help keep their family fed, whats the problem? Subjective terms like that probably apply to every factory in the world. I work long hours, I'd say that I'm not making "enough" money, and my conditions, well, I suppose being inside a Gulfstream plane for most of my time isn't "poor conditions".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3034624 - 08/22/04 12:37 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Good point. Certainly the attempt by the world bank to impose free market measures in Argentina and Indonesia has caused complete economic disaster.



Jesus Christ, how fucking moronic do you have to be to equate the world bank with the functioning of a free market? Sure they might ask some governments to become a little more free market in some regards, much as a doctor tells a heart attack patient to improve his diet. But any person who thinks that the world bank is a free market institution is a total dipshit. It was created by, is controlled and underwritten by GOVERNMENTS (using extorted tax money of course)! It's a marriage of big government socialist economic meddling with banking industry corporatism, using tax money to underwrite all sorts of schemes to bail out governments from failed policies. To equate it with the free markets is like equating prositution with chastity.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3035475 - 08/22/04 07:08 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I'd stop them from FORCING children to work in AlexSweatShops?....

I have no idea what you are talking about.

has been answered

Are you trying to say corporations havn't moved production to other countries and denied workers union rights?

An Alex123SweatShop? is a sweatshop in which children are forced to work horrible conditions and where union organizers are introduced into the company-sponsored Doctor Martin Dental Plan.

It is? Thanks for letting me know.  :rolleyes:

Once again, go to a dictionary and you'll find "my" definition of a sweatshop.

and that doesn't imply or specifically state anything about the age of the employers

I presume you meant "employees" not "employers". Are you trying to deny there are any children on earth working in sweatshops? Seriously?

I'm going to have to ask you again to give me YOUR definition, in YOUR own words, of a sweat shop

I'm perfectly happy with the dictionary definition. I'm going to have to ask you once again, are you trying to deny there isn't a child on earth working in a sweatshop?

a sweat shop isn't necessarily using child labor, it's two different things

No, you're confusing yourself. A sweatshop doesn't have to employ children but many do because greater profits can be achieved using child labour.

ALso, don't reply to this with a "well look it up", because he and I both have, and the definition that they gave isn't meshing with your mental image of a sweat shop

Forget about what you think my mental image is and try and stick to reality. I've told you to look in any dictionary for the definition of a sweatshop. I have informed you that many children work in sweatshops. Are you trying to deny this?

PInkSharkMarks position on child labor?

Yes.

I think he specifically mentioned that kids working in their parents shops isn't "sweat shop" labor.

What has helping out in your dads shop got to do with kids working full time in corporate run sweatshops?

we begin discussing sweat shop labor, then you toss in a bit of child labor

God give me strength. We're talking about corporations employing child labour. Not helping your mom carry her bags into the house from the car. Ok? Are you clear on this now?

Finally, can you tell me pinkies position on using child labour in sweatshops? (And you can assume that the sweatshops are NOT owned by the childs parents)

I await with interest..:sleep:

However, I've seen 10 year old Mennonite children around here using bulldozers and such with a skill level that would earn them 40$ an hour on the open market. Again, no force, no foul.

Fine. You're happy seeing 10 year old kids working bulldozers for a living. Why didn't you just say this in the first place?

Incidentally, how much do you think those 10 year old kids really earn? Can you guess why they are hiring 10 year old kids instead of adults? You've got three guesses...

If a child works at a "factory" doing "long hours" for "low wages" at "poor conditions", but in doing so they manage to help keep their family fed, whats the problem?

Fine. You approve of sweatshop child labour. You have stated your position. I wish you'd done so 5 pages ago and saved us the effort.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3035476 - 08/22/04 07:09 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

have you anything to say in response to my previous post?

Was there anything new in it? I'm a little tired of repeating myself for 6 pages..


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Evolving]
    #3035478 - 08/22/04 07:14 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Sure they might ask some governments to become a little more free market in some regards

That's what I said. And each attempt to follow free market policies has resulted in complete and utter economic disaster.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3035615 - 08/22/04 09:30 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Was there anything new in it?

yes. read it. then have a crack at answering the questions i posed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3035735 - 08/22/04 10:48 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I can't find anything new in it. It's all been addressed before.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3036033 - 08/22/04 01:24 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
That's what I said. And each attempt to follow free market policies has resulted in complete and utter economic disaster.



Key word, 'attempt.' The truth is, they DON'T follow free market policies, to blame their problems on the free market is disingenuous. You have to examine the whole regulatory environment, taxation, fiat currencies, state funded guarantees, tariffs, etc. A smattering of economic liberalization in one area without the dropping of other controls or government guarantees is a prescription for disaster - the botched and mis-named California electrical energy market 'deregulation' is testament to this. Another example would be lifting prohibitions against certain activities by banks but keeping taxpayer funded insurance so the banks can be protected from the follies of bad decisions, encouraging them to take risks with investors' money they would avoid if they weren't sure the state would bail them out.

Every government in the world, even the most hardcore communist government has/had some areas which are/were not under strict control, that does not make the government policies 'free market' any more than it makes a woman chaste if she refuses to have sex with you but has it with three other men during the same week.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3036924 - 08/22/04 07:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)


I can't find anything new in it. It's all been addressed before.


oh?

maybe i missed it then?

where did you explain what you would have the government do if businesses disobeyed the law, and how it differs from what i would have the government do?

where did you explain why it is entirely conceivable for you to propose that the government regulate child labor (but not me), and why your proposals would not be subject to the same sort of difficulties that you've been saying mine would?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3040207 - 08/23/04 06:09 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

also...

do you believe it should be illegal for any person under the age of 18 to perform any sort of labor?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Powder, Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Michael Badnarik chosen as LP presidential nominee grib 397 1 05/30/04 09:13 PM
by Ancalagon
* Interview with Badnarik
newuser1492
1,632 14 09/20/04 09:31 PM
by Zahid
* Badnarik to appear on the Alex Jones Radio Show today silversoul7 721 2 10/12/04 01:17 AM
by ekomstop
* Badnarik on Michael Moore (constitution on fire) DigitalDuality 763 5 09/01/04 06:42 PM
by silversoul7
* Badnarik/Cobb arrested
newuser1492
1,314 12 10/09/04 01:49 PM
by Learyfan
* Rasmussen Reports - Badnarik In Debates Ancalagon 1,088 17 07/27/04 06:24 PM
by Ancalagon
* Are any of you voting for Badnarik?
( 1 2 3 all )
Libertarian 2,877 40 09/03/04 05:11 AM
by fastfred
* Badnarik article
RandalFlagg
304 0 10/29/04 10:41 AM
by RandalFlagg

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,144 topic views. 9 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.257 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 16 queries.