With Libertarianism and justice for all

[vovat]

For more radio fun, I listened to Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, being interviewed on NPR. I thought he came across as fairly rude and not too bright. (Brighter than Bush, I suppose, but then so are most potted plants.) Really, he struck me as being pretty similar to the Family Radio fundamentalist types, only instead of "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus," it was "private property, private property, private property." Yes, there are areas in which I think the government has too much control. The thing is, though, who doesn't? I'm sure if you asked Democrats, Republicans, and even Socialists, most of them are not going to say, "Yes, I want the government interfering in every aspect of my life!" There's certainly some disagreement among the different political parties in terms of exactly when the government SHOULD be allowed to interfere, but not wanting a lot of interference isn't an idea on which the Libertarians have a monopoly. Libertarianism, as least as explained by Badnarik (who might not represent the views of all people who consider themselves to be libertarians), seems to be based on easy answers and buzzwords. For instance, he said that criminals are people who don't respect private property. Also, Columbine was apparently caused by Ritalin (something with which the host of the program actually took issue), and a lack of restrictions on gun ownership would result in less crime. In addition, Badnarik used the word "steal" so often, you'd think he was a representative of the RIAA. It's a word that gets a reaction, even when used in a fashion that might not be entirely appropriate. So, yeah, even if I thought Badnarik had a chance of winning, I wouldn't vote for him.

Comments

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with zaph as far as education and (especially) health care being rights. To me, saying you have the right to life (as Libertarians apparently do, since Badnarik referenced John Locke's "life, liberty, and property") also means you should have the right to prolong life by the means that we have at our disposal. To say only some people should be able to have them strikes me as pretty cruel.

That doesn't mean that I don't think people should be required to contribute to society. I do, as long as they're able to do so. I guess I basically agree with the "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" principle in that respect. I think one of the main problems is poor organization. It seems to me like everyone should be able to have a home, a job, a decent education, and reliable health care. As it is now, a lot of people don't have any of those things.