Michael Badnarik Libertarian Party Convention 2010

[sharpsteve2003]

Michael Badnarik gives a big dose of the truth to the Libertarian Party.

Michael Badnarik Speaks Sunday Morning at the 2010 Libertarian National Convention (excerpt)
YouTube - Michael Badnarik Speaks Sunday Morning at the 2010 Libertarian National Convention (excerpt) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB49vsbZhDE)

Michael Badnarik Libertarian Party Convention 2010 Speech Part 1
YouTube - Michael Badnarik Libertarian Party Convention 2010 Speech Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRBdKMitPIg)

Michael Badnarik Libertarian Party Convention 2010 Speech Part 2
YouTube - Michael Badnarik Libertarian Party Convention 2010 Speech Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmqXS5XSn10)

[emazur]

Good speech, thanks for posting.

BTW, if anyone intends to watch all the vids, you can just skip the first one as he goes over it again in the other 2

[sharpsteve2003]

Bump

[BuddyRey]

Ah, principles!!! I remember when the LP used to have those!

[Todd]

Badnarik -


Because Libertarians couldn't sell Ice water in the desert. Libertarians agree on 98% of the platform. but they spend 98% of their energy debating each other on the 2% they disagree on.


Remind anyone of a particular forum?

[Brian Defferding]

He makes a lot of great points. Great speech, thanks for posting.

[Matt Collins]

WOW!!!!


That was entertaining. I like Mike, he never pulls punches.... EVER!

[haaaylee]

Dang . . . He is pissed at the Libertarian party, ha.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Maybe the phoney balognes over at the LP will do whats right and nominate Mary in 2012, and then give WAR and the rest of the neophytes in the party the boot (Heres looking at you Barr & Donderooooooooooooooooooooo!).

Michael is the man once again. He should just recant and recite the Von Mises family motto to these people. Never compromise!

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito!

You do not compromise the principles of liberty.

[qwerty]

michael badnarik gives a big dose of the truth to the libertarian party.

Michael badnarik speaks sunday morning at the 2010 libertarian national convention (excerpt)
youtube - michael badnarik speaks sunday morning at the 2010 libertarian national convention (excerpt) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab49vsbzhde)

michael badnarik libertarian party convention 2010 speech part 1
youtube - michael badnarik libertarian party convention 2010 speech part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prbdkmitpig)

michael badnarik libertarian party convention 2010 speech part 2
youtube - michael badnarik libertarian party convention 2010 speech part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmqxs5xsn10)

awesome! :)

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Maybe the phoney balognes over at the LP will do whats right and nominate Mary in 2012, and then give WAR and the rest of the neophytes in the party the boot (Heres looking at you Barr & Donderooooooooooooooooooooo!).]

Well while I agree with getting rid of people like Root, Mary Ruwart as the nominee of the LP could very well be the death of the LP because of her statements about child pornography.

From her book "Short answers to tough questions"

"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."

Whether she is right or wrong about this stance, if she was ever a threat to any mainstream candidate the media would get a hold of this and the LP would become the "Child Porn" party along with already being called the "Marijuana party".

As far as this speech, sadly what Michael said is just as relevant about pretty much the entire freedom movement.

[Slutter McGee]

I am all for extreme principles in the Libertarian Party. And I don't mean extreme in a bad way. But I am in the Republican Party.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[georgiaboy]

I'd like someone to deliver a similar tongue-lashing to the GOP at one of their rah-rah fests, er, conventions.

And I know just the guy to deliver it. :D

[RM918]

Well while I agree with getting rid of people like Root, Mary Ruwart as the nominee of the LP could very well be the death of the LP because of her statements about child pornography.

From her book "Short answers to tough questions"

"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."

Whether she is right or wrong about this stance, if she was ever a threat to any mainstream candidate the media would get a hold of this and the LP would become the "Child Porn" party along with already being called the "Marijuana party".

As far as this speech, sadly what Michael said is just as relevant about pretty much the entire freedom movement.

Indeed. Might as well make the case to legalize assassination as outlawing it only makes the career that more attractive. Doesn't quite turn out that way, though.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Indeed. Might as well make the case to legalize assassination as outlawing it only makes the career that more attractive. Doesn't quite turn out that way, though.

I don't consider the child a slave to their parents, so I think a child has the right to determine how he or she uses their body. I remember when I was 10-12 I had the ability to make reasonable and rational choices, and held intelligent conversations. Indeed, adulthood in early Rome was 14, so the case can be made. I am just wondering at what age do my natural rights kick in? According to pro-lifers that would be at inception. What say you?

Note: It would only be legal if they were consenting of their own volition without coercion. Needless to say I think it is grotesque, but who am I to outlaw others desires which have no victim, and no rights violated. Just like I wouldn't outlaw eating raw meat even though I find that grotesque myself.

Hell I remember my father telling me I could leave if I wanted to when I was 12-13 because I didn't agree with some of his decisions. The rational response in me obviously kicked in and I ceded, but I don't see how someone can believe in natural rights, and also believe in child slavery (which it is if you don't allow your child to make that fundamental decision of independence or dependence -- though in our current dilemma they outlaw the child from working to keep himself alive, ergo involuntary slavery to their parents..I think the child has a right to say if he/she wants to be independent or not.).

[RokiLothbard]

Because Libertarians couldn't sell Ice water in the desert. Libertarians agree on 98% of the platform. but they spend 98% of their energy debating each other on the 2% they disagree on.

what a bunch of total crap. There is no way that number is higher that 96.5%.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I don't consider the child a slave to their parents, so I think a child has the right to determine how he or she uses their body. I remember when I was 10-12 I had the ability to make reasonable and rational choices, and held intelligent conversations. Indeed, adulthood in early Rome was 14, so the case can be made. I am just wondering at what age do my natural rights kick in? According to pro-lifers that would be at inception. What say you?

Note: It would only be legal if they were consenting of their own volition without coercion. Needless to say I think it is grotesque, but who am I to outlaw others desires which have no victim, and no rights violated. Just like I wouldn't outlaw eating raw meat even though I find that grotesque myself.

Hell I remember my father telling me I could leave if I wanted to when I was 12-13 because I didn't agree with some of his decisions. The rational response in me obviously kicked in and I ceded, but I don't see how someone can believe in natural rights, and also believe in child slavery (which it is if you don't allow your child to make that fundamental decision of independence or dependence -- though in our current dilemma they outlaw the child from working to keep himself alive, ergo involuntary slavery to their parents..I think the child has a right to say if he/she wants to be independent or not.).

You would never be able to defend this position on CNN. It would be end of your candidacy, and it would be terrible for whatever party you were part of.

Right or wrong.

[speciallyblend]

I am all for extreme principles in the Libertarian Party. And I don't mean extreme in a bad way. But I am in the Republican Party.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

i have to agree,now if the gop totally blows it by 2012. I might have to reconsider but i highly doubt if i do leave the gop . i would return to the lp. i would be looking for new party and platform!! The gop has a timeline to fix their party and it is not on some afghan/iraq timeline of endless wars!!The gop better shape up asap or they will be shipped out!!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You would never be able to defend this position on CNN. It would be end of your candidacy, and it would be terrible for whatever party you were part of.

Right or wrong.

Yes, you would. You should stop kidding yourself to think that a LP candidate even has a .000001% shot of winning the Presidency right now. Honestly though, all you would have to do is give your position, and then let them know that, that is about as low as a priority as you can possibly get.

Anyways, I've heard your argument a million times before. The LP is not supposed to be GOP-LITE, it's supposed to stand up for libertarian principles, and as such, Mary is absolutely right that a child has the right to enter agreements and contracts.

If it were up to people like you, Ron would have never brought up anything "controversial" or let me say -- unorthodox. In that case, we will never get anywhere. Besides, when you have such principled libertarians, it makes the little less principled libertarians look a bit less out there, even if their positions are out of the mainstream. This is a tactic the socialists and communists have been doing for ages, and we might as well use it also, but I would rather like us all to be principled libertarians.

[Kregisen]

"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."

Obviously a kid say, 5 years old is definitely too young to make a decision like that......and obviously someone say, 20 years is old enough to make a decision like that.

You have to pick an age in the middle where you choose to give individuals the right to legally consent....18 is a pretty good number I think, but who knows maybe you could drop it a couple years. (there is no perfect answer as everyone matures at different ages) But porn under the legal age SHOULD be illegal.

[trey4sports]

Obviously a kid say, 5 years old is definitely too young to make a decision like that......and obviously someone say, 20 years is old enough to make a decision like that.

You have to pick an age in the middle where you choose to give individuals the right to legally consent....18 is a pretty good number I think, but who knows maybe you could drop it a couple years. (there is no perfect answer as everyone matures at different ages) But porn under the legal age SHOULD be illegal.

agreed. I understand the argument, but at 5 years old a child is NOT capable of making their own decision and entering into a valid contract

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

agreed. I understand the argument, but at 5 years old a child is NOT capable of making their own decision and entering into a valid contract

I am just curious, at what age does someone become able to enter into a contract? What about all the dumb adults who fall for scams? Should their natural right of contract be revoked?

I merely assert the basic fundamental right of any human to enter into an agreement / contract of their own volition without outside coercive entities, or other such corrupting agents. If it is the childs sole discretion (and a child according to the law is anyone under the age of roughly 17-18), then how can you say it should be outlawed?

I find it grotesque, but I also recognize the right. A child is still a human being endowed with all the rights any other human being has. Something the majority of pro-lifers don't really understand. How can the child have a right at birth, but not after? Absurd.

If the child is unable to enter into a contract because they do not have the capability, then that is the NATURAL way of things, and can clearly be shown in court. If the child does have the capability that can be shown also. So, this non-sense about some abstract age giving rights, and intelligence / decision making is lunacy. There are adults who act like five year olds, and eight year olds who act like they're twenty-two.

[Orgoonian]

For me,it was Badnarik that opened my eyes,to the way things should really be.

[Razmear]

For me,it was Badnarik that opened my eyes,to the way things should really be.

Badnarik and Harry Brown are the foundation of the Libertarian Party.
I resigned from the SC LP after they unanimously voted to support Barr and Root.
If Badnarik ran in 2012 I'd support him as strongly as I did Ron Paul in 2008 (provided Ron wasn't running as well).

eb
http://2323.us/badnarik-banner.jpg

[tnvoter]

Badnarik -




Remind anyone of a particular forum?

hahahaha

yes.

& i love us.