Informative write-up, Al.

Sadly, the mainstream media will ignore the Libertarian Party's candidate (as they always do), while heaping attention upon borderline-communist Ralph Nader.

(The irony is, this actually ends up helping the GOP, who does not have to contend with a well-known candidate sucking off votes from its base.)

What differentiated Badnarik from the other two candidates, aside from his Columbo-like demeanor? What does he and doesn't he stand for, politically speaking?

I guess I'm interested in knowing where the Libertarian battlefields are.

I highly recommend the Boaz book to anyone interested in the basics of libertarianism. Not only is he a good author but my dealings with him have proven to me that he is a nice bloke as well.

BHW- Libertarian Party members mostly tend to have pretty similar overall policy views. For a bite-size way of getting at a lot of complicated stuff, Libertarians generally put a lot of emphasis on strictly following the constitution.

The government should only be doing the few things it is specifically authorized to do in this charter, and nothing more- as per the 9th and 10th Amendments. In practice, this would mean that we'd like to cut out most of what the government does. The federal government by rights should mostly be limited to military defense of the country, and a few sundry issues specifically mentioned in the constitution.

For starters, where is there constitutional authorization for a Social Security administration or any other form of social welfare, such as farm subsidies? Besides being a very bad idea to begin with, there's just flat NO authority for the federal government to outlaw any drug.

Note however- and this is where things start to get more complicated- that we don't put such emphasis on the constitution because of some fetishistic worship, but because it mostly reflects very well some basic philosophical principles of individualism. (Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein are particularly favored authors in our circles.)

The differences between Libertarian Party members tend to come down more to emphasis and style. Different people have their own pet issues. Russo, for example, was the "peace candidate." Most Libertarian Party members oppose the current war (I'm in the minority with my support), but Russo is pretty particularly strident. He also opposed the Afghanistan war, which even most Libertarians supported.

My knowledge of Badnarik specifically is somewhat limited yet. He was fairly much an unknown dark horse even within the confines of our party faithful until this convention- though he has been diligently traveling the country state by state to meet party members one to one.

What I have gotten from him is an emphasis on the big picture of constitutionally limited government. He doesn't seem to be particularly animated by one or two pet issues, as many of us are. I'll be interested to see what exact policy issues he will focus on.

Libertarians are impotent nerds. No one cares about the nomination process for a candidate who won't even get 0.5% of the vote. Go worship Ayn Rand, you simpletons and cultural illiterates.

The "Brother Kole," beer, and "common as an old shoe"/Columbo comments are funnier than you realize. I refuse to dignify your silly eunuch cult with any more comments.

That is all.

BAB:

Are you intentionally trying to make enemies on this site? Have you ever once praised anybody here?

I mean, it's entirely up to you how you behave. If you want to be insulting, go right ahead. It must be fairly easy to do when you post anonymously...

No, I don't want to make enemies or friends. I don't try to insult anyone. I honestly think your political affiliation is a joke; so sorry if that offends you.

I praise people when they deserve it and test their ridiculous views when those deserve testing.

You got some praise yourself. "Ripley? RIPLEY?!!! I'd rather do the Alien" comes to mind.

Stick to what you know.

That is all.

Don't get me wrong, BAB. I think you're hilarious.

But you paint with a rather broad brush at times. For instance, I am a "libertarian" and not a "Libertarian." Believe it or not, this makes quite a bit of difference.

Anyway, carry on. I now enjoy this site even more than I previously had, due in part to your prescence.

I think this'll be my last comment for the day because I just saw that I'm the leading poster of the day for the first time. That frightens me and means I'm officially part of your "family." I guess I'd be the adopted nephew.

Thanks for the nice words, RJ, I think.

Let me re-phrase one thing, though, to address your big-L, small-L distinction:

"I honestly think your political PHILOSOPHY is a joke; so sorry if that offends you."

That's all for today. Happy Memorial Day, folks.

Libertarians, at least of the small-l variety, are a large and growing segment of the electorate.

They won;t be winning any national elections soon, of course. But they actually have fresh and exciting IDEAS, something which both major parties seem to lack nowadays...

I got quite a kick reading up on on Michael Badnarik. He:

*Would repeal all tax laws and abolish the IRS.

*Believes the Constitution does not limit individual ownership of guns and other deadly weapons.

*Wants to return to the gold standard for currency.

*Wants to eliminate public education as an option. Says he would turn all schools into businesses.

*Is anti-abortion, though he tries to punt by claiming that the topic is somehow 'states rights.'

Bhw, about the only thing a reasonable person could agree with Michael Badnarik about is that the invasion of Iraq should not have occurred. Though, actually, he is evasive about that. Says he would have waited for Congressional approval, but not that he would not have allowed the invasion if he were president. The guy is a reminder that so-called libertarians are often to the Right of conservatives.

In summary, Badnarik is the sort of person who would appeal to a lightweight who can blather on and on about him and not even state his position on any issues.

As someone who sometimes teaches Con Law, I shudder at the thought of what a person with no legal training and little common sense, such as Badnarik, is passing off as the law.

Al, thank you for the info. MD, thank you for the link.

I've just started to poke around on his site. I was happy to see, Al, that your candidate agrees with me and other liberals about the Patriot Act, drug laws, and gay marriage!

But that's about as far as it goes.

His pet issue: gun control laws. It looks like the only section under "The Issues" that is written in the first person. Unfortunately, he gets all fired up and, ironically, starts dreaming up presidential powers that don't exist:

If the American people decide that I am the person they want in the White House, there are dozens of laws that I will declare unconstitutional, however my FIRST official act will be to eliminate the gun laws to restore every American's right to protect their lives and property.

Since when does the president get to declare laws constitutional [I mean, s/he can say whatever s/he wants, but there can be no real power behind those words]? And since when can the president eliminate existing laws?

Also, some of his ideas about prisons are a tad wacky:

Given the opportunity, Michael would like to change one aspect of prison life to increase the safety of the people guarding them [the prisoners]. Instead of allowing them [the prisoners] to lift weights and exercise several hours per day (making them violent AND powerful), Michael would require them to remain in bed all day for the first month, and twelve hours per day after that. This lack of activity would allow their muscles to atrophy, making them helpless couch potatoes incapable of inflicting very much violence on each other, the guards, or unsuspecting citizens should they manage to escape.

Where does he get the idea that this will work? Not very sound reasoning there. Nor here:

The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. [emphasis mine] I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.

Oh, great. Another guy who likes to show off his power by blowing stuff up. Aren't you a bit worried about a candidate who wants to blow up a building in NY to show the world what he thinks of the UN? He doesn't seem to understand that the NEW YORKERS, you know, those millions of Americans living on the island, don't want to be reminded of the rubble of 9/11.

Terrorism much?

I think Badnarik might have come from the anti-tax movement. However, his rancor toward tax and gun laws is almost equal. It will be interesting when his tax records are examined as part of his candidancy. Has he been paying them?

I'm also curious why the Texas bar is allowing him to practice law without a license. (Teaching usually requires a law degree.)

Oh, Gawd! It appears he is involved with the militia movement. Will do more reading before saying more. Hope it isn't as bad as the first impression.

BHW- re: "Since when does the president get to declare laws constitutional?" ("?" added)

Since the time that he has taken the oath of office. There's nothing in the constitution that gives this power to the court system specifically. They say that they cannot enforce a law that contradicts the constitution, because it trumps. Fair enough.

But the same thing applies to congressmen and the president. If a president comes in, and there's a law requiring, say, the confiscation of all handguns it would be the president's clear minimal duty under his oath to defend the constitution to not enforce that contradictory law- same as the courts. Send the word down through the Justice Department.

That's not the same thing as repealing the law, and it might sit there until a new president comes in who will interpret things differently- as might the next Supreme Court.

Big Al explains: "In practice, this would mean that we'd like to cut out most of what the government does."


(~Shark picturing Al driving to work on his privately owned interstate highway~)

If Badnarik gets into office and refuses to enforce the laws Congress passes, they'll just impeach him. End of story.

And personally blowing up the U.N. building is just childish. Can this guy possibly be any more dismissive of opposing opinions? That kind of uncomprimising attitude isn't going to get him very far in politics, nor should it.

"...blowing up the U.N. building is just childish..."

I agree!

I suggest we turn the UN building into a replacement for a torn-down Abu Ghraib.

Throw the entire Bush administration in there, hire some female cracker hayseeds, hand out some dog collars and digital cameras, and sit back and enjoy.

BTW: I'll be announcing my candidacy on Friday.

Exactly, JR. The Conservotarians try to make themselves out as an alternative to the conservatives. But, when you examine their actual positions they just seem more wacko than their mainstream counterparts.

Badnarik is like an overage adolescent, the kind who can never get a date, with delusions of grandeur. (Hmmn. I could say something about RJ Elliott, Al Barger and Marty 'Ain't Nuthin' Wrong With Being a 'Scientific' Racist' Dodge' in that respect. But, being a very nice girl, I won't.) Much of what Badnarik thinks is cutting edge deep thought was John Birch Society boilerplate half a century ago. Why do so few of these people have any sense of even relatively recent history?

On closer examination, I learned Badnarik is chummy with the militia crowd (he eggs them on to break gun laws), but cannot determine if he is a member. If he has ever had anything to do with the Republic of Texas militia (whose leader hailed from Ohio, if I remember correctly) that in itself should make him the laughingstock of everyone who hears his name.

I invite y'all to look at the link in my comment above and read some other of the Badnarik material. As you can tell from bhw's quotes, some of it is unintentionally funny. If I had time I would write a satire of the world of President Badnarik. (Avert!) Women with huge broods driving down their private highways, dressed in full body armor, armed to the teeth and towing a Uhaul filled with the only currency allowed -- gold -- behind them to the closest McPrivate School. Someone should go for it.

BHW: Good job parsing the platform. I thought of doing something similar myself, but I didn't have the time or energy to lend the Libertarian Party such dignity.

Like I said, former speech club/band geek impotent nerds who still read Mad magazine and come up with "policy papers" in their mom's basement during a heated game of D & D.

"Delusions of grandeur" is my pet phrase, sweetie. I'm the amateur psycho-analyst here. Ever heard of the anxiety of influence? Your closing vignette there wasn't funny. Stick to what works in your writing.

That is all.

MD: "...Women with huge broods driving down their private highways..."

Booey, protect me! She's tryin' to steal my shtick! *She's doin' ME -- BADLY!!


* special thanks to Lenny Bruce

The Libertarian Party will never win high elective office as long as it remains dogmatic.

However, libertarian principles can certainly achieve tacticval victories within the two-party duopoly, especially through such measures as ballot initiatives.

You people did not educate yourselves on the Libertarian party.

Badnarik is correct on gun laws. Over the last 100 years, the world governments have killed 170 million of their own people, meaning you're more likely to be killed by your own government then by a private citizen. All dictators used "gun registration" to "keep weapons out of the wrong hands" but once they had the list they took all the guns away. Gun Registation was Hitler's idea. If we destroy the gun registration lists and allow "assault weapons" government could never take away our rights.

The UN thing was a joke (I think (or hope?))

Also, Badnarik is correct on inflation. Government intentionally inflates the money supply since it's $7 TRILLION in debt. Who cares about the citizen who has his life destroyed by inflating his savings?

If we destroy the gun registration lists and allow "assault weapons" government could never take away our rights.

I think the "guns prevent dictatorship" argument has been pretty thoroughly discredited by Saddam Hussein.

Hi-

Here's a link to Liberty magazine's coverage of the LP convention. It appears that Badnarik has not paid income taxes in several years, refuses to get a drivers license (but drives anyway) and refuses to use zip codes. When will the LP ever learn? Who declared this guy a "constitutional schol" anyway?
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html

Thank you for the link, Jeff.

Who declared Badnarik a constitutional scholar? Himself. I've looked at his meanderings and they bear little relationship to actual thinking about our actual constitution. Often, the fellow just wanders off onto one of of his weird obsessions. The sad thing is that some poor souls are apparently paying him to become misinformed by taking his classes.

I anticipated Badnarik's tax problems in Comment 13.

If you actually read the article, you'd see that Badnarik has volunteered to in fact settle with the IRS rather than risk a bad scene on the campaign trail. In fact, refusing to pay income taxes is arguably a perfectly principled and even noble gesture - it's just kind of foolish, as the machine is bigger than you are and can simply crush you.

The driver's license business comes from Texas demanding fingerprints to get a driver's license. Again, having driven without a license might not be the best strategy, but he's got legitimate beef. Fingerprinting is for criminals, not drivers. Again, if you read the Liberty Unbound article, you'd see that he's leaving the driving to others at this point.

He is a self-appointed constitutional scholar, yes, but unlike the other presidential candidates, he's actually read the thing- and takes it seriously.

Well, if lying about a blow job was grounds for impeachment, I can only imagine what chronic unlicensed driving would do to a president.

Oh wait, presidents don't drive -- they get driven.

Okay, I can only imagine what chronic refusal to pay taxes would do to a president.

Last I heard, simply not filing a return was only a misdemeanor - though they'd still take your money. It's LYING on a tax return that becomes a big ol' felony.

I don't think Badnarik would make much of a liar. It's, shall we say, against his constitution.

It is a good thing we read the sites describing Badnarik's bizarre views early, bhw. According to the article, they've been, um, cleansed.

The infighting among the libertarians reminds me of the infighting among the neo-Confederates. (Which, incidentally, some of them are also.) They're about as interchangeable as peas in a pod, but see themselves as having great differences from each other.

Badnarik's behavior is that of an irresponsible person. Even if he opposes the tax laws, he is benefitting from using the resources other folks are paying taxes for. Let him protest particular aspects of taxing if he wants, but there is no excuse for not paying taxes at all. That is just plain freeloading. His obsession about zip codes being 'federal territorities' makes no sense. He recognizes other kinds of administrative divisions, such as counties and states, so why single out zip codes? Just two examples of why to anyone not equally a crackpot, Badnarik is wa-a-a-y out there.

Big Al,

re: the 1995 law requiring a thumb print for every driver's license in Texas


The local Libertarians here in the Lone Star State are debating various ways to get around this. The consensus sounds like a pretty good solution, but it has its down-side:

One of the boyz decided that he'd simply chop off his thumbs, which helps with the license issue, but makes it hard as hell to hold a 357 Magnum while driving.

Life's full of tough choices.

Oh, Badnarik surely pays plenty of taxes, for example sales and excise taxes on gasoline that help fund the roads. Other than that, he's probably note using a lot of these services that you have decided that he should pay for.

See, if "we" decide to have a whole bunch of stuff paid for by the government, then "we" all benefit from it, and "we" should all pay for it.

This is about the point where us folks down on the farm start asking about the mouse you apparently have in your pocket. Badnarik didn't volunteer to pay for every kind of crap that anybody could convince 51% of congress to vote for.

The rest of Diva's attacks are mere name calling, and really quite subjective. I've never heard him so much as mention the zip code issue, so I don't see "obsession." [edited]

My 'subjective' opinions about Badnarik are apparently shared by other people, including some libertarians. As you all know, I like to read. Would never have stopped with Ayn Rand. I've read enough material about Badnarik to know he is like a wacky adolescent in a grown-up's body. His obsession with zip codes -- he believes they are 'federal territories' and refuses to put them on mail -- is just one of many of his far out beliefs. Persons not afraid to be bored on a nice day can learn about that, and other weird stuff, by reading the article Jeff cited in Comment 25.

Many of the libertarians who fell for what is apparently charisma by odd guy standards, did not know Badnarik's beliefs, according to the sources. He basically glad handed his way into the nomination. Smiling, being affable -- but not making much sense. If you re-read Barger's entry, you can see how that occurred.

Apparently Diva is obsessed with zip codes, cause she seems to be carrying on with them. Badnarik, on the other hand, has not mentioned them anytime I've met him or seen him on television.

Perhaps he doesn't like zip codes. I'm not real fond of Social Security numbers, personally. I try not to give mine out unless I really have to. I suppose that makes me "wacky." Nor do I like being fingerprinted. In the immortal words of Bob Seger, it makes me "feel like a number."

I'd never heard of Badnarik until April. There are a couple of quotes from the old website that do sound a bit wacky, which critics are going to go on and on about.

That'd be fair enough, but they're not the real reasons for opposing him. Socialist pinko types dislike the basic anti-authoritarian message of cutting out the welfare state and rolling back the power of government.

Rather than address the actual major issues though, some would rather pick out two or three ill thought out comments from everything the guy's ever said, and try to use those to discredit not just Badnarik, but the whole party.

Those couple of quotes sound to me like just the kind of thing some blogger would type at 2 am, and then look back at a day or two later and want to reconsider. Who amongst us hasn't written something as bad or worse?

Badnarik was a pretty obscure fellow till he rode in and took that nomination in Atlanta. An occasional silly quote like those is no big deal for an obscure blogger, but as a presidential candidate, it won't do.

He needs to be extra careful about how he presents himself, and not be giving cheap ammunition to the enemies of freedom. He has to step up his game. All indications are that he's doing exactly that.

[edited]

Zip codes simply make it easier to deliver mail. They also are a way to examine demographics on a community basis. However, I can't think of any way they are particularly likely to be used to do harm by the federal government. Perhaps Badnarik will explain his paranoia about zip codes at some point.

A Google search for 'Badnarik + zip codes'. Anyone who did even nominal research on him would know about this oddity in his behavior, along with others. [edited]

Michael Badnarik is getting the word out and is energizing folks! LP members should be proud instead of fighting amongst themselves. The in-fighting will not help to strengthen you, but it will divide you and keep you down.

Michael Badnarik is a great speaker, and because of him, the LP has a new member-- me. Now I share the LP position with my friends and have possibly picked up 2 more new members.

Question: If Badnarik is opposed to Zip Codes, why is it a required field on his site (www.badnarik.org) under Support/Donations?

We all have our quirks. Who agrees 100% with anyone, much less a political candidate anyway?

Cheers!