MB: As you come across the border we need to be able to identify you. You need to have some sort of proof or have someone in the United States sponsor you. If we have people in the United States saying 'yes I know that person is here. I want to kind of cosponsor their existence here in the United States", we can do that. I want to really avoid at all cost having a national ID system. I mean, it's not that many decades ago that we were horrified that Adolph Hitler was using IBM cards to keep track of the Jews. The Jewish people had tattoos stenciled on their arms to keep track of them. Oh my gosh, this is terrible! So now we're going to have drivers licenses and passports that have far more information than just one little tattoo. I mean they can scan you from ten feet away. That just does not seem like the proper way to go. I believe in individual rights. I think that individuals can work back and forth. You and I can establish a contract and I can decide whether you're a reputable person. If we let individuals do that and let the free market and not a government controlled market work, I think that things will return to normal. Wages will be attributable to whatever the work is worth. We have to get a commodity based currency. Having the Federal Reserve printing money like it's going out of style, we would literally be better off using Monopoly money because Parker Brothers prints less money than the Federal Reserve does. So when you have that much fiat money being printed you can't trust the economy. The money is losing value. Which is exactly why the Constitution was written in the first place. We signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and between then and when the Constitution was ratified in 1789 we had the Articles of Confederation. Everything was working except for the fact that each of the thirteen colonies was printing money like it was going out of style. It was almost like a contest to see who could print money faster. So the paper money was inflating overnight. You wouldn't accept paper money because a week from now it would be worth less. It was that economic problem - people said 'you know, I like this independence thing, it's good to make my own decisions and have control over our own government, but the economy sucks.' So they sent representatives to Philadelphia explicitly to fix this problem. So one of the first powers Congress was given was the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. It doesn't say anything about printing money because that was what caused the problem in the first place. So we need to stabilize our economy by getting some sort of commodity based currency. Now personally I like gold and silver. I've been told by other people that that's not the best choice. I'm not supposed to be an economist I'm just supposed to be able to understand their knowledge. But I do know that printing money out of thin air is a bad thing for the economy.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
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?