Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 8/18/2004 12:47:56 AM EDT
I've heard several people on this board mention that the open borders policy is a significant reason why they'd never vote for a libertarian candidate. Knowing how libertarian positions are often misrepresented, particularly by the popular right wing media, I thought I'd share a quote from Badnaric himself, in an AFP interview....

"I advocate open immigration for individuals who are willing to enter at a Customs and Immigration station and submit to a quick background check to ensure that they aren't criminals or terrorists. And except for extreme cases such as Cuban and Haitian boat refugees who don't have much control over where they land, I advocate treating people who cross the borders elsewhere as what they are: invaders."

"As a Libertarian, I oppose redistributionist welfare programs. As president, I'd work to eliminate them. Right now, the U.S. is a magnet for people seeking a handout. I want us to demagnetize ourselves in that respect."

There you go, straight from the source.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 3:16:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 3:17:53 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 3:34:52 AM EDT
A Libertarian vote is as good as a vote for Kerry.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:18:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:21:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:23:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By Mahatma8Rice:
A Libertarian vote is as good as a vote for Kerry.


Ditto!

Eric The(libertarianRepublican)Hun



+2
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:27:17 AM EDT

"I advocate open immigration for individuals who are willing to enter at a Customs and Immigration station and submit to a quick background check to ensure that they aren't criminals or terrorists.


How do you run a quick background check on some guy from Nigeria or Saudi Arabia? It isn't like you just hook up into Nigeria's computerized crime database and make that check. How about Saudi Arabia? Who would you ask there and what are the chances he is even thicker with the terrorists than the guy you are checking on?

There are a ton of libertarian ideas I like; but I am less and less convinced that the Libertarian Party is ever going to get any of them implemented. I mean they have existed for over 30 years now and the peak vote (1.1%) they received was 24 years ago - that is either a party that is doing a remarkably poor job of implementing change or their long-term planning is so far down the road that it will never make a difference in my lifetime.

If the Libertarians can even match the Green party vote for this election, I'll be amazed.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:33:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 8:40:58 AM EDT by Backstop]
This is one time that I'm voting specifically to keep one man out of office no matter what the cost.

If you vote for anybody other than President Bush, you're helping Kerry.

EDIT: I could've sworn Badnarik was pro-abortion, and had a talking paper on same. I just looked at his site and it's not there.

Did anyone else see it?

www.badnarik.org/Issues/

2nd EDIT: OK, here he says he's against it. Maybe I need to start drinking...
www.issues2000.org/2004/Michael_Badnarik_Abortion.htm
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:36:53 AM EDT
Open borders or open immigration policies are national suicide.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:39:32 AM EDT
Hell, why not? Open the borders. Let the rest of this country's leftover integrity hemmorhage out.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:40:17 AM EDT
You guys just don't get it do you? Open borders is what we have now. If we would quit paying for every tom dick and juan to come here then we would be much better off. It amazing the lengths you guys will go to to protect an incumbent administration that is sending billions to mexico every year, and the guy that wants to stop the handouts is reviled.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:56:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 9:02:14 AM EDT by motown_steve]
Open borders is only one (and probably the least important) reason that I would never vote for a Libertarian. The MOST important reasons are:

1. Removal of all restrictions on pornography, which would lead to a surge in child pornography, child molestations and child prostitution.

2. Removal of all restrictions on illicit drugs, which would lead to a dramatic growth in hardcore drug use, leading to increased crime rates, increased prostitution, and increased gang violence (oh, you think that the crips and bloods, the mafia and the international drug cartels will give up their drug industry to the Bayer corporation? ) and more deaths due to overdose and poisoning.

3. Creation of PRIVATELY funded police and courts, putting the police and courts under the control of those who provide the funding. Brownshirts for the porno barons and drug cartels!

4. Elimination of a strong federal government, leaving no one with the strength or standing to ensure that the rights of the citizenry were not eliminated by the money-mad, power-hungry porno barons and drug dealers!

The first 3 positions combined, would create a Feudal system where the pornographers and drug dealers are funding and controlling the police and the courts. I could not imagine a more hellish possibility! Just think what America would be like if John Gotti and Larry Flynt were running the show with armed thugs to enforce their edicts. And keep in mind, that there would be NO ONE strong enough to stop them! Somolia is a perfect example of a Libertarian uthopia!

Thank you, but no thank you. I would rather live without marijuana and machine guns, than live in hell!
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:11:12 AM EDT
Motown,

Again, I'm amazed by how the libertarian position is misrepresented.

1. The libertarian party does not advocate decriminalizing child pornography, that's ridiculous and you know it. Consenting adults sure, no consent/too young to consent = force= crime.

2. Prohibition creates gangs, violence and crime. Take the immense profit created by the prohibition out of the equation and the gangs primary source of funding is GONE. Besides, Badnarik doesn't advocate no restrictions, he advocates fighting the drug war at the border.

3. Badnarik is a constitutional scholar, that's his profession. His position is simply to restore the constitution, law enforcement and national defense are the only legitimate role of government, that's the central tenet of libertarianism, you're talking about anarchy, which is different.

4. see 3.

Not everybody lives in a swing state, if you do and you feel like voting for Bush is the right thing go for it, I would. Just don't misrepresent the other parties positions.

Abortion is a devisiveissue among libertarians, just like it is among the general population. Badnarik is pro-life, the party is againstcriminalization.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:23:45 AM EDT
Motown steve keeps posting this same crap over and over, it gets old and I guess he is happy with the US supporting and financing drug kingpins and white slavers NOW. But of course he will deny that.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:31:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Motown,

Again, I'm amazed by how the libertarian position is misrepresented.

1. The libertarian party does not advocate decriminalizing child pornography, that's ridiculous and you know it. Consenting adults sure, no consent/too young to consent = force= crime.



I do not know that. The only thing that I know is that the Libertarian party advocates removing all restrictions on pornography. I have seen nothing that would suggest that there would be restricitons on child pornography under a libertarian system. Quite the opposite.



2. Prohibition creates gangs, violence and crime. Take the immense profit created by the prohibition out of the equation and the gangs primary source of funding is GONE. Besides, Badnarik doesn't advocate no restrictions, he advocates fighting the drug war at the border.



But in this case the producers and distributors of narcotics are, and always have been criminal organizations. Do you honestly think that the drug cartels would allow themselves to be squeezed out of the drug trade by legitimate businesses? Do you believe that the drug cartels and street gangs making and distributing drugs would abide by any types of regulation, taxation or restriction? The answer to both questions is an bovious NO! All they will do is continue to kill their competition and flaut that law. Business as usual is too lucrative, and no one is going to want to take on so many powerful, wealthy, violent criminal organizations by competing with them in the marketplace! CEO's want to get rich, not dead.



3. Badnarik is a constitutional scholar, that's his profession. His position is simply to restore the constitution, law enforcement and national defense are the only legitimate role of government, that's the central tenet of libertarianism, you're talking about anarchy, which is different.



I have read multiple times that the policy of the Libertarian party is to eliminate publicly funded courts and police, and replace them with privately funded police and courts. Is this NOT the case? It is a an inevitable certainty that under such a system, the people who would control the police and courts would be the people who fund the police and courts. The Drug trade and pornography industries are 2 of the most lucrative industries in the world. If given legitimacy, then there money and power would naturally increase exponentially. It would not take long for these industries to begin excersicing financial influence over the enforcement and interpretation of the laws.

Link Posted: 8/18/2004 12:45:37 PM EDT
Motown,

You're information is simply wrong.

The central tenet of libertarianism is that the initiation of force is a criminal act.

Therefore child pornography is a crime.

Of course criminal organizations supply ILLEGAL drugs, that's the point. When you create a demand for a prohibited substance a criminal organization will spring up to meet it. There is no way for a criminal enterprise to maintain a monopoly if there is no crime involved in production. We're talking about plants for the most part, that literally anyone can grow. The resources devoted to the drug war would be better spent keeping foreign drugs out of the country(and the profits out of the hands of criminal/terrorist organizations), which is only posible with tighter border controls, which is only possible if we document our immigrants, which is the libertarian position on the issue. Hard drugs tend to come from overseas, the federal government is authorized to regulate international trade. There's no need to lock up citizens to have an anti-drug policy.

No, that's not the case. Not all libertarians and not all law enforcement. Privatization in this case is more about how the system is funded, charging criminals and those involved in civil litigation for the true costs of the services they receive. There is no support I'm aware of for giving any lawmaking or enforcement authority to one group of private citizens over another.

Never trust anyone to accurately represent the policies of their competition.

Never confuse libertarianism with libertarian socialism, which is a completely different political philosophy which Badnarik is no way affiliated with. Libertarian socialism is a fancy term for anarchy, and many mainstream political pundits conveniently don't recognize the difference.

Libertarianism is the belief that government has a legitimate role in society, that that role is to enforce the principle that the initiation of force is a crime. Since it must initiate force itself to exist and to enforce the law, it cannot legitimately exceed that mandate. That mandate includes law enforcement, national defense, international relations, and some environmental protections (you're neighbor cannot pollute your property, or public property, with impunity.) and so on. That's the root of all libertarian positions.
Top Top