DN: That kind of leads into my next question. A lot of ideological libertarians just reject the idea of making the kind of pragmatic compromises that have to be made to get bills passed or to find a middle ground where legislation can be effective within the structure that exists. I know that from your background you're more of a constitutionalist in a lot of ways than the kind of pure philosophical libertarian that you find a lot of in the party, and that may make you more electable than traditional libertarians many of whom are so dogmatic that they can't interface with real politics in any way. Everyone claims that they want to support the Constitution, so right there you've got a foot in the door. Do you think that you're going to be able to make those kind of compromises at all? Are you willing to do that?
MB: It depends on what we're compromising on. If we've decided that a certain action requires money and we're compromising on how much money we're going to invest, those are compromises that I'm willing to make. I am not willing to make compromises on principle. How much rape is okay? What percentage of rape would you allow into a particular bill? Oh, we're going to allow 10% because that way we can get the votes and get it passed? There are just some issues that you just cannot compromise. I use the issue of rape because it's an emotional issue, but I feel the same way about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a Chinese menu where you get to pick and choose the ones you like. Oh, we're going to enforce this one but we're going to let that one slide. The Bill of Rights is there to put further limitations on Congress. We the people have rights. We give government privileges and we can take those away any time we want. As I said earlier, everybody understands that Congress is supposed to work for us, but they don't know what to do to fix it. The thing that we need to do to fix it is to take the Constitution and be uncompromising when it comes to anything that is unconstitutional.
DN: What if there are problems with the Constitution? I hadn't planned to ask this question, but it's very relevant to what you're saying. The Constitution as originally written did not permit for taxation of personal property or personal wealth. The 16th Amendment changed that and is now part of the Constitution. How would you deal with the tax issue given that the 16th Amendment is now law and it would be difficult to repeal it.
Article comments
1 - Roberta
Good for Michael Badnarik, I hope he wins. Finally, Libertarians are getting some press.
Bill Peirce, Libertarian for Ohio's Gubernatorial race
Good article, looking forward to part 2.
2 - Nancy
Terrific article, well done, Dave! I don't agree totally with his ideas, but I really hope he wins, because he's on target in that the current incumbents both GOP & Dem have forgotten THEY work for us, and this country desperately needs a 3rd - and even a 4th - alternative party for people to choose from. I'm surprised the GOP hasn't targeted him & started their usual smear campaign; perhaps they don't regard him as being enough of a threat? What do you hear about that?
I've always thought it was a vast mistake for alternate party candidates to run for president; without some kind of prior position such as congressman or governor, it's virtually impossible. Even Ross Perot with all his billions was unable to buck the system in the end, more's the pity.
Well, here's to Badnarik; good luck to him & all of us. Good job, Dave!
3 - Dave Nalle
Badnarik addresses the issue you raise at some point in the interview, as I recall. His argument is that you get a lot more exposure for your ideas as a presidential candidate and if you're not going to win anyway, you want to not win with the largest possible audience.
Dave
4 - Nancy
Yeah, but look at Lyndon LaRouche, the perennial Presidential candidate. He's been running for eons, but his platform gets nowhere. It's a joke. Now if he'd perhaps gone (back before he became a household byword for crackpot) for a local position & solidified from there, to a seat in the Virginia assembly, and from there to a seat in congress or perhaps governor, he'd have had a viable position from which to get out the message. As it is, he's just the crackpot who runs for president every 4 years. As I said, I think it would take someone with the bank account of a Bill Gates to try to break in on a national level, these days, and even that would be an uphill job, given the ruthless desperation of the two entrenched parties to prevent anyone else from joining the fray. After all, look at the savaging Bush/Rove inflicted on fellow Republicans; talk about eating your own young! I hardly think they'd be nicer to a wanna-be 3rd party or its candidate.
Anyway, I DO hope he wins. Good job, Dave.
5 - Lumpy
What larouche runs for is kind of irrelevant since he's so obviously a deranged maniac.
6 - Clavos
Very interesting interview, Dave.
I like
muchmost of Badnarik's ideas expressed here, but I'm not in agreement with his wanting to do away with GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and trade agreements in general.I'm afraid if we do, other nations will impose tarriffs and other restrictions unilaterally, and the net result will be a loss of market position on a worldwide basis for American businesses.
He makes a strong point when he talks about his potential for supporting and backing up Ron Paul.
I wonder how realistic he is when he dismisses your point about committee memberships?
7 - Jet in Columbus
Now if we can keep idiots from confusing the Libertarians from the Communists he'll be all set.
8 - George Whitfield
I really like the way Michael Badnarik explains his positions. I am so glad that I contributed to his campaign for Congress in Texas. I wish him the best.
9 - Al Barger
I like Michael Badnarik very much, but I'm really dismayed by this quote and the implications: "If you are here illegally you have just demonstrated that you have no respect for law and it is not immigration."
I appreciate that there are problems associated with the massive not government approved immigration from Mexico, particularly involving the US welfare state getting stuck picking up the slack from sub-living wages. That's more a reason to reform and cut back on various aspects of the welfare state than to be against immigration though, I'd argue.
But this common argument that being here illegally means that you're an outlaw is absolutely bullshit, and it's especially dismaying to hear this from a Libertarian. As a good Libertarian, Badnarik won't recognize laws that are unconstitutional. Beyond that, he won't recognize the legal legitimacy of the income tax, which is constitutional, on grounds that they are violations of our basic liberty. I'm right there with him on all that. Just because some legislature passes a law or a judge makes an edict does not automatically make it legitimate or morally binding.
But then how does someone who speaks this way turn around in the next sentence and demonize people coming here to work for people who want to hire them and rent them places to live, just because the government has arbitrarily decided that they can't?
And he's certainly kidding himself if he thinks that a serious crackdown on unapproved immigration won't involve some kind of ugly national ID crap. Jumpin' Jehosaphat, this fellow spent years refusing to get a driver's license on principle- and now he's wanting ID for people to establish their right even to walk the street.
10 - Dave Nalle
Very good point, Al. Many Libertarians believe in open borders and I did ask Badnarik about this and got a kind of cagey inadequate answer rejecting open borders but not really addressing the implications. I really wanted to take him to task on some of this, but I didnt' think it was my place as the interviewer to start lecturing him. He's a nice guy, but even though he's more sensible than the norm of Libertarians, he's still not dealing entirely in the real world.
We had an interesting talk outside of the interview about some aspects of LP politics that I didn't have any formal questions on, and apparently even the small compromises with practicality which he's made have pissed off a lot of the far-out Murray Rothbard style Libertarians - the same people who protest when Neal Boortz gets invited to speak at their convention.
Dave
11 - me
"... dumped...like most of the other 'Fighting Dems' - and he's getting no financial support from the party.."
How much is Bush paying you to claim this?
got any evidence?
I didn't think so.
12 - Dave Nalle
'me', what is your problem? The abandonment of the Fighting Dems by the DCCC is well documented. And can't you use a hyperlink? I provided a link to DailyKos specifically about how Ankrum has been dumped.
One would think that if you're a 'new democrat' you'd be outraged at Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC for their outrageous treatment of the Fighting Dems rather than taking it out on me for mentioning it.
Dave
13 - Scott
The DCCC's support (or lack thereof) for Ankrum has more to do with the 10th district's conservative leanings rather than the fact that Ankrum is a fighting Dem. You can't win them all...I suspect their money is going into more "winnable" districts.
14 - Lumoy
Doesn't this district include a big chunk of Austin? Why does that not make it good for a demoxrat?