Haven't been able to arrange the trip to Europe yet. Everytime I almost have the money, my wife buys some new furniture. I'm hoping to get a new, better paying job soon. Have an interview today in fact. If it works out then I'll either be coming later this year, or I'll get a new bedroom set, depending on who can spend it faster.
Pure no-government capitalism? No such thing. In such as situation the corporate heads would immediately set themselvs up as the government itself. There wouldn't be no government, the corporate leaders would be the government. This is fascism. Again, there is no such thing as the "best economic system" there are such things as the best economic system/s for achieving a particular goal. But then this depends upon the goal in question, the culture in which you are enacting the economic system, the resources that you would have access to, the region of the would in which you are implementing this system, current infrastructure, the current economic system, population, agriculture, growing seasons, whether patterns, local ecosystems, economic systems already in place in other parts of the world, whether or not you are land locked, political attitude of the rest of the world towards you, your region, and your culture. I could go on for about ever here. For example, for thousands of years, and for many varied peoples, a moneyless barter economy woker just fine. However, if tomorrow congress abolished money and declared that the U.S. would now operate on barter alone there would be complete chaos. There would be civil war, it would be an absolutely horrendous situation.
In a move that astonished many Libertarian activists, including myself, this afternoon (Sunday, May 31st), delegates at the Libertarian National Convention in Atlanta nominated computer engineeer and constitutional law professor Michael Badnarik from Austin, Texas to be the 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate. For more info, go to: www.badnarik.org
He came into this race as an 'underdog' with a lot less visibility and exposure (not to mention a lot less money) than both Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo. My concerns right now lie with the fact that he now lacks the funding necessary to run an effective campaign. I'm wondering at this point where he will get that money and will he be willing to perform the activities necessary for a quality campaign. I heard both his acceptance speech aired on C-SPAN along with a follow-up interview and felt that they could have been a bit more substantive. In the twelve years that I have been active with the Libertarians, I have seen too many lackluster campaigns. In the party's history, we have never gotten more than a million votes for president and only once have we gotten over 500,000. That was back in 1980 when Ed Clark ran! When Harry Browne ran in 1996, I was hoping we'd be able to break the million mark, but that wasn't the case. I KNEW that when Browne ran in 2000 that he'd get fewer votes than he got his first time. I was right! On a somewhat brighter note, I MUST sing the praises of our vice-presidential candidate Richard Campagna from Iowa. Nevertheless, Libertarian candidates have had great difficulty selling their message to the public. We have so much to offer, but are often ineffective at getting our messsage across in a positive fashion. Unless Badnarik has a few 'tricks up his sleeve' and can be an effective campaigner, I feel that, as in the past, we'll have great difficulty breaking out of the six-figure bracket vote total and fall into a state of obscurity again. I hope like hell that I'm wrong! Also, with the perilous position that our country is in at this time, we can ill afford not to have an impact!
He came into this race as an 'underdog' with a lot less visibility and exposure (not to mention a lot less money) than both Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo. My concerns right now lie with the fact that he now lacks the funding necessary to run an effective campaign. I'm wondering at this point where he will get that money and will he be willing to perform the activities necessary for a quality campaign. I heard both his acceptance speech aired on C-SPAN along with a follow-up interview and felt that they could have been a bit more substantive. In the twelve years that I have been active with the Libertarians, I have seen too many lackluster campaigns. In the party's history, we have never gotten more than a million votes for president and only once have we gotten over 500,000. That was back in 1980 when Ed Clark ran! When Harry Browne ran in 1996, I was hoping we'd be able to break the million mark, but that wasn't the case. I KNEW that when Browne ran in 2000 that he'd get fewer votes than he got his first time. I was right! On a somewhat brighter note, I MUST sing the praises of our vice-presidential candidate Richard Campagna from Iowa. Nevertheless, Libertarian candidates have had great difficulty selling their message to the public. We have so much to offer, but are often ineffective at getting our messsage across in a positive fashion. I am concerned that, as it has been in the past, we'll have great difficulty breaking out of the six-figure bracket vote total and fall into a state of obscurity again. I hope like hell that I'm wrong!
I worked with this guy...he is a moron. He is argumentative, self-absorbed, self-righteous, judgemental, and is in love with guns for some reason..i mean IN LOVE. Plus, he isn't very smart, and doesn't listen to people. He liked to talk politics all the time at work, but his ideas are far-out and he would laugh and criticize other ideals. He has never paid his taxes, but wants to run the country and play in taxplayers money. Anyways, I am always for voting outside the republicrats, but I would vote for Kerry over this guy.
Hmmm.... Where did you work with him, and how do you know he "isn't that smart" other than the fact that he's self-righteous and likes guns?
I worked with him, actually my desk was very near him, so we talked politics on a regular basis. He did telemarketing for a company called Database Marketing Group. He left the company about 6 months ago. We both held the same position. Anyways, he is book smart...but thats about it. He is a reformist, and don't get me wrong, I am all for reform and we hold some of the same ideals, but he is in NO WAY president material. First off, I don't like the fact that he refuses to pay his taxes (he has never paid them in his life) but he is more than willing to take a position where he will be controlling a lot of American tax dollars. Also, he doesn't listen to a word from anyone but himself. As long as you agree with him he is happy, but the minute you disagree with anything he thinks, he gets angry. If a person thinks that he has already learned all he can, he is not very smart. Things change, times change, and human knoweldge in general changes. A person can never be done learning, and anyone who shuts out anything that isn't in direct agreement with himself is not very smart. Not to mention that since he does have this attitude, he will probably fill his cabnient with "yes men" because thats the only type of person he can tolerate. Anyways, dont take the fact that I don't like him to mean that I am a republican or democrat, because I am not. In fact i really don't think that there is much of a difference between the two. I was just giving my opinion of the man, since I know him personally. I really didnt want to get into it too much, i hate to talk bad about people; and I do feel a little partial to him, having worked with him for a while. To me, he is a better man than Bush (although i don't know Bush personally, so who knows for sure) but I don't think he has the ability to sucessfully be the president of our country.
The reason why he likes firearms is that he understands that if the government were to ever get control of our firearms, most if not virtually all of the liberties that we hold dear would also be rescinded!
I live in the redneck lands, if the feds EVER tried to take our guns, they'd need alot of APC's just to get near someone's house, including mine.
Personally I'm not a gun fan, don't like 'em except when they're in movies, video games, and other fictional depictions. I don't begrudge people their guns though, and anyway I think firearms are too set into our culture to ever really effectively enforce a gun ban or anything of that nature. Living in the central Midwest, my hometown's surrounded by redneck country as well. Farmers love to put their pro-gun signs everywhere, some of them are rather stupid... e.g. "Ban the criminals, not the guns" ... "ban" criminals?
Yep..... that's EXACTLY my deal. I'm (still) registered as a liberatarian but i'm not really a full liberatarian.
I don't have a problem with big business per se. However, when business tries to lobby the government to pass laws so that they maintain their position in their industry, I have a problem. Businesses should compete in a given market based upon their own efforts and not by leveraging the government to pass laws creating major barriers to their industry. For example, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and GM shouldn't be leveraging laws so that their oligopoly is protected and competitors are kept away. This is just one example of corporate welfare. If you get a chance, watch the movie "Tucker" and you'll know what I'm talking about. It's no wonder why Toyota and Honda are cutting into the big three's market share. If someone wishes to enter a given industry, he should be able to compete with those who are already in that industry without going over anymore hurdles than absolutely necessary. I disagree that a good economy needs big business. A good economy needs all types of businesses with as much competition as possible. One excellent example of this was in Hong Kong before the Chinese gained soverignty.
