Slashdot Mirror
Ask Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik
Our first interview subject for politics.slashdot.org is the
Libertarian Party candidate for US President, Michael Badnarik. You can read his blog to learn more about him. Standard Slashdot interview rules apply: Post your questions today in this discussion. Moderators do your thing. We'll select ~10 questions, and hopefully get answers later this week.
It's his time and money, he can do what he wants with them. (Although GWB and JFK probably think that they can do a better job of telling you what you should be doing with your own time and money.)
And he's not wasting the nation's resources. The LP will not accept federal money to run their campaigns, even though they wouldn't get any anyhow. (Isn't it nice how the Dems and Reps set up a system under which only they are allowed to use our nation's resources?)
Yes, we should all just sit back and take whatever our masters want to give to us.
Don't be a jackass. You run because you want your ideas to spread, to give them a forum and maybe, just maybe, make other "mainstream" candidates pull towards your line of thinking.
From lp.org:
Over 600 Libertarians are serving in public office -- more than all other third parties combined.
Baby steps...
Stupid sexy Flanders.
U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Is that a good enough explanation?
What?
It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general idea. I don't see this ever getting passed in the US, but it's certainly possible to set up an election where you can vote for the 3rd party candidate and yet your vote isn't really wasted.
This guy is an idiot. The Sixteenth Amendment gives the IRS authority:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If that's not enough this pdf clearly outlines where the IRS gets it's authority and why US citizens must pay income tax.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property.
Wrong. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only exist for the purpose of limiting the power of the Federal (and State, theoretically) governments. It makes no other guarantees about the behavior of your fellow citizens and was never meant to.
As a side effect of this, a person is able to throw you off of his property for any reason, including saying things he doesn't like. What are you saying? You shouldn't be able to throw a burglar out of your house if he starts quoting "Mein Kampf", because that would be a violation of his free speech rights? What about the rights of the property owner?
If you don't like the concept of private property, go ahead and move to Vietnam or North Korea or something, there you can starve equally.
Given your focus on individual responsability, what - if anything - do you propose should be done with regard to people incapable of supporting themselves (due to physical or mental incapacity)? In your view, does the state hold any responsability towards them?
Come on, this is directly covered on his website among other places. Let's ask a question to which we don't already know the answer.
Yes, but the US government had to add the 16th ammendment to collect income tax. Before that, the wording you quote only specifies duties, imposts, and excise. The ambiguous word "taxes" doesn't allow for the form of tax collection we have today.
There is much evidence that the 16th ammendment was NEVER RATIFIED by congress. It should be repealed, and the federal government should have NO power to tax individuals directly. Excise and tariffs can support a libertarian form of government.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
What sorts of regulations and rules if any do libertarians believe are necessary to prevent the descent into "survival of the fittest"?
These two sentences are in direct conflict with each other. The Libertarian concept is *not* hard to understand. Freedom from federal regulations and rules is exactly what Libertarians propose.
If you are worried about the children, you are worried about the wrong thing. Up until the New Deal, the federal government had very little influence on the entirety of the country. Since no one alive ever really existed before then, it's hard to relate what the country would be like without agencies like the EPA, FDA, and others. Let me assure you, there were little, if any, widespread problems or issues. What exactly does the government provide to your children that you are concerned about? Child-labor laws? Public education? Which of the services that the federal government provides your children are you the most happy with? If a private company were to provide the same thing and you were taxed less, would you use them or would they fundamentally be in err simply because they are "driven by profits"?
Libertarians feel that states will rise up to the challenge of protecting those areas they deem necessary. Or private enterprise will. The federal government need not complicate matters with a broad centralized form of control. When government centralizes, so do corporations. When the laws makes the states more the same, corporations open up franchises without a hitch. If you like localized services, decentralize the government.
In most of your appearances and in your debate with Dave Cobb, you emphasized that one of your most immediate actions would be to end the Federal Reserve and dramatically restructure the currency system. Given that the market can take considerable swings if Alan Greenspan so much as sneezes, have you considered the market reaction in response to a sudden standard shift? Regardless of your personal policies, if the public confidence in a metal standard isn't there, how would you prevent a panic? Would it be possible to take a more gradualist approach to Libertarian policies, in order to do things like pay down the public debt first?
Badnarik? Rich? Ha! Badnarik's just a teacher who offers a one-day class on the Constitution.
I've been following Badnarik's ascent to the LP's candidate in Reason Magazine, which covers a lot of libertarian issues, and one thing is for sure: this man had almost NO funding whatsoever in his campaign.
In fact, leading up to the LP convention, he drove around in his Kia Sophia campaigning with just one other guy, and they would often run out of money and have to rely on the generosity of random supporters to even have a place to stay. For example, when the LP convention came around, it was held in a Marriott hotel or something like that. Badnarik couldn't even afford a room! Fortunately, an impressed supporter offered Badnarik the chance to use his room as a "base of operations" of sort, which allowed him to talk to more delegates and win the nomination.
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
It could be that he's just tired of seeing people killed in what amounts to a relgious war between the "our" christians and "their" muslems. What is it, 20,000 people or so? Not WWIII perhaps, but still a lot of dead people whose main failing seems to have been not backing the right brand of god.
Yes, I know there have been all sorts of other explanations offered (9/11, WMD, etc.) but those don't hold up to a minute's thought. If we were striking back for 9/11, why didn't we even look at Saudi Arabia? If it was WMD, why are North Korea (or South Korea for that matter) largly ignored?
I'm a Republican, and not particularly scared, but I'm sick of my country and my party being hijacked by the "moral" right to go kill infidels. You don't need to "threaten" how much worse four more years of this will be.
-- MarkusQ
It's not just about money. Having run for the State House in Michigan in 1992, I can tell you that it is about preserving a two-party hedgemony. A Republican or Democrat could get on the ballot by simply going to the County Clerks office and plunking down $100. Then each candidate (Rep/Dem) would be put on the primary ballot in August with the winner showing up on the General Election ballot. A few hundred dollars does not cover the cost of holding an election in a district, so money is not the issue. When I ran, I was an Independent candidate. I had to collect 2% of all the votes cast in district during the last Governors election on a petition. It came out to just over 500 signatures. During that time while collecting them, I came to the conclusion that the system would work better if the folks in office had to go out and face the voters. They were a pretty anger bunch in 1992, I'll bet they're even more hostile today. If I had been the incumbent, all I would have had to do was sign an Affidavit of Incumbency and I would have been on the ballot automatically. It isn't about money. It's all about access.
Kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich but the boss gets richer off you. --Dead Kennedys
ESR wrote a very insightful piece on exactly this.
No comment.
Second Amendmant. Doesn't matter how strong or weak you are physically, a gun fires just the same.
But in all seriousness, libertarians like simplified rules. That is, a lot of the rules we have on the books today are hair-splitting, which is where all the bullsh*t comes in. And then there are the primary parties (Republican & Democrat) that put words in mouths (Yay, we're the pot party: not quite, we believe you are responsible for yourself (no welfare), so if you want to smoke pot, that's your own choice, deal with the consequences (less money, lung damage)).
What I like about the libertarians is that they ultimately give you back free choice: for better or worse, you are free to make your own decisions, and you live with the responsibility for those decisions.
Lastly, the founders of the US closely embodied those libertarian ideals (a few compromises, but close enough). Anyone care to guess what George W. would do to you if you suggested an income tax? Hint: it involves a rope and something called 'treason'. Sad that we haven't tried any politicians for treason (in a while)...probably because that word is loaded.
I am John Hurt.
How can you even begin to be a viable choice if you don't have candidates across the board in a majority of electorial races.
According to this page in 2000 the party fielded 255 of 435 U.S. Congress candidates and 25 of 33 Senate Candidates. Over 1430 candidates ran under the Libertarian Banner in 2000. The LP runs twice as many other candidates as all other third parties combined.
And those numbers are a enough that we could have mathematically had a house majority.
But remember that a majority is not necessary to effect a change, a minority equal to the difference between the two statist parties would do a lot.
Hmm, so this would lead us to expect that in areas that have extremely low taxes, giving to charities would be much higher.
You obviously have empirical data to back this up, don't you?
Oh, what's that? You don't have any at all? Because if you did it would show exactly the opposite result.
This is what happens when you make up "facts" on the basis that they sort of sound right -- eg. "they'll throw flowers at our soldiers! flowers I say!" -- what you get is quite often totally, predictably wrong because you didn't argue from experience but from what was self-flattering and made up. Nice try, but this is Bush-administration style reasoning.
How do you reconcile your belief that the federal income tax has no basis in law with the fact that the 16th amendment clearly states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."?
I've seen a lot of uninformed discussion on this topic, so I'm going to step into this minefield and try to explain the income tax controversy. Either that or I'm just going to add some more uninformed discussion, you be the judge ;-)
Note that I pay my taxes, and think that anyone who doesn't is stupid.
I'll warn you in advance, this is complicated, and I may have missed a bit here and there, but I think this is a reasonable summary of the *informed* argument about income taxes in the US.
First, some will argue that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified, because although it was ratified by 3/4 of the states, not all of them ratified the same language that is in the final version of the amendment. I don't know what the differences were, perhaps someone can speak up.
However, those people who argue that are being silly, because it doesn't really matter -- because the 16th amendment wasn't necessary in the first place. Why? Because Congress already had the power to lay taxes, per Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. There are some limits, based on the definition of "direct" taxes in Article I Section 2, on what has to be apportioned among the states and what has to be uniform across the entire nation, but Congress always had the power to tax incomes. Both the US Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury have found that the 16th amendment granted no new powers to Congress, but just clarified that income taxes fell into the category of taxes that do not have to be apportioned. Since the Supreme Court has held the same to be "inherently" true, repealing the 16th amendment (or convincing everyone that it was never actually passed in the first place) wouldn't change anything.
The reason that the amendment was passed was because of a court ruling that held that income taxes were "direct" taxes and had to be apportioned. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling in 1916.
So, Congress has the power to lay income taxes. Fine. Does that mean they have the right to tax *your* income? Well, that's not necessarily clear. Why? It's a question of jurisdiction. According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce but does not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Taxation is a form of regulation. If you don't buy that, think about all of the tax credits given to incent particular behaviors. And, anyway, the Federal courts have found that taxation is regulation.
So, there is an argument to be made that Congress can only tax incomes that derive from interstate or international sources. Yes, yes, the 16th amendment says "from whatever source derived", but unless that is interpreted to mean that Congress has been granted a limited ability to regulate intrastate commerce, then incomes from intrastate sources are not within the scope of the authority granted to Congress, so anything purely intrastate would be implicitly excluded. It would seem that if the intent were to give Congress the authority to regulate intrastate commerce in particular ways, that should have been stated more clearly. Besides, the Supreme Court says that the 16th Amendment granted no new powers to Congress, and theirs is the opinion that matters.
So if I sell lemonade on the street corner, 100 miles from the nearest state line, my income should not be taxable, right? Well, maybe not, but, in practice, if you don't pay it you're going to jail and if you make this argument in court they'll simply refer to the numerous court rulings (all the way up to the USSC) that uphold the tax laws and their common interpretation. If you appeal all the way to the Supre
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The LP position on drug legalization is simply an application of their principles. This is how all political parties are supposed to be, right?
For everyone's benefit, here is the LP's Statement of Principles, from my membership card:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Italics are from original, not added.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to apply above principles to various current issues, such as the aforementioned drug legalization, gay marriage, social security, universal health care, gun control, etc.
I think what you are really saying above is that the LP is too principled to win. Only wishy-washy centrists are able to win major political elections. I don't disagree, but I will still proudly vote LP this November and in every other election I can get my hands on, and feel happy that I voted for a candidate that matches my viewpoint exactly.
Okay, a little off-topic ranting there, but I can't help it!
Carl
Vote Libertarian
Actually, that'd tend to put you in democrat territory.
Libertarians disagree with republicans more on social issues, siding with the democrats, while they disagree with the democrats on economic issues, siding more with the republicans.
This is a vast simplification, as the Libertarian party is likely to strike off into their own territory at any time, disagreeing with both.
I don't read AC A human right
What's most important to libertarians is to limit the scope of the federal government.
Local governments, and to a lesser extent state governments, are more controllable than the federal government.
I think it would be great to have a libertarian in federal office. It's not like he will make it illegal for states to have such laws/programs.
Under Badnarik (Congress willing), Medical Marijuana would be legal here in California.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I dispute all of your claims but I'll start with the bit about Air Traffic and Toll Roads.
The airline industry is typically regarded as an economic success. People are able to go further for less money and in greater safety than if they drove. This crucial safety (which makes flying so attractive to the market) is accomplished by regulation. As you pointed out the Air Traffic controller and the nation's air-traffic control system (considered by many to be integral to security) is a single network designed and run by the federal government who sets national standards for airport operation, flight operation, pilot training, etc.
All of this regulation not only makes flying safer (a crucial point if it is to be successful) but it maes it possible for airlines of all sizes to operate. If every airport was different, and every town was a new adventure to fly to then the cost of travel would be considerably more as airline pilots would be required to learn a new standard set of rules for each airport and for each place. The time taken to go from place to place would increase. All of this would work to shut smaller airlines out of the market in favor of the larger, already established companies. Similarly the smaller airports would become less and less served as only the really big runs, the cash cows would be favored, as each small airport, without federal aid would probably fall into disrepair, or at least not be able to keep up with the bigger cities.
As to toll roads, consider first that it took federal dollars to build the existing roads and that even in states with toll road (in my experience) the roads do not pay for themselves. Rather the tolls only act to offset the state dollars that must be invested in them to keep them maintained. Without these roads the ability to move produce, to connect different parts of the state would be adversely impacted thus adversely effecting the economy in general. Making them toll roads to help offset costs is one idea but it will never be a viable way to privatize all road construction. And, how will you ensure that the roads are usable without regulating the way in which they are constructed? Even if you do privatize it the state will still have to be involved.
As to urban sprawl. I personally do not like it but privatizing the infrastructure won't change that.
Look at all of the infrastructure that has been privatized in the past. All of it (in my experience), from the deregulated phone services to the deregulated power in California, to privatized water has been more expensive than municipal services.
In general, a "free market" cannot operate without some infrastructural support, and regulation to make it feasible. Without that monopolies grow and your ability to "vote with your feet" becomes a joke. Take a look at the old trusts of the 1800's They had no regulation, and the people had no freedom.
Wrong. Point 1 is important. Your reply only stems from your 1 dimensional view of politics (left/right). I know this is a tired old argument, and many people are sick of Libertarians 'educating' them. In this case it is necessary though: Republicans want less government (will they ever do it?) and a more restrictive social environment (pro-life, war on drugs, no gay rights, etc..). This does not suit many peoples view and therefore they look for others.
Yeah, coporate auditing is nice, but it can't replace the SEC. Look at Arthur Andersen.
Interesting that you critic my logic, then say something like this. Let me summarize: We can't get rid of X, because X failed and so did Y. (Enron happened under both groups watch).
My point is three-fold
This means however, that all money paid to Arthur Anderson was paid voluntarily by the shareholders, as no one is forcecd to own Enron stock. The distinction here is very important, because you can not voluntarily pay the SEC (taxes). This means you have no choice, even if you want nothing to to with stocks, or can't afford them. Therefore all the poor are paying taxes to support a regulatory agency that protects just the rich. If rich people want to be protected, they should hire their own auditors (protectors).
I am int
Libertarians would abolish the income tax and not replace it with anything.
/ grichar35.html
You wouldn't need an income tax (or the majority of all other taxes for that matter.) if government were bound by its Constitutional limitations.
Jim Grichar has quite a lenghty discussion of the billions and billions of dollars that need to be cut. An easy $656 billion/year could be cut right now. And that doesn't even take us back to Constitutional restrictions.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar
We don't support a flat tax, or fair tax, or any kind of other replacement tax. Cut government spending, borrowing, and taxing, and the poor would currently have more money, and rich corporations wouldn't be protected by regulation, corporate welfare, and protectionist tarrifs.
Tracy
You're a fool (and a presumtuous one at that. "They", indeed) if you think the libertarian position leads logically to "thugs coming by your house demanding protection money".
You should read a few libertarian publications and learn something before dismissing them out of hand.
There's nothing in the libertarian philosophy that prevents a government from stopping the abuses you describe: It's quite clear that people must be protected from other people. The Federal government is doing far too much more than that now, of course.
Obviously you'll have a number of hard-core libertarians who are more like anarchists than anything. But you'll find wackos in every party. I'm not sure why you think the libertarian thinkers are more wacko than the rest.
Finally, a libertarian leader would never get all his "dreams" passed. But whose to say leaning that way wouldn't help? Start somewhere, work towards freedom.
I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet:
downloadable videos of Michael Badnarik via bittorrent
The classes on the constitution are extremely insightful.
-metric
The way I currently view American politics, is that we are nearing what Hegel called the "synthesis". He states that in every era a prevailing world view or thesis exists (conservatism), this is countered by an antithesis (liberalism). Eventually the two will meld and become the synthesis which in turn serves as the thesis for the next era. This is happening now. So-called "conservatives" and "liberals" have had steadily had less to argue about over the past atleast 30 years. They now become increasingly blurred and mixed. Liberalism is becoming the new conservatism. Now though, classical liberalism or libertarianism is coming into view. As more and more people become disenfranchised with the current state of politics, libertarian thought will rise to take up the mantle of antithesis. Or perhaps I have it all wrong and libertarianism is really the synthesis since it takes the "best" parts of conservatism and liberalism. Hmm, something to ponder... Anyways, I guess I'll ask Mr. Badnarik a question since I'm here... Mr. Badnarik, I will be voting for you this November and my question is how will you gain access to the public in order to dispell myths and misconceptions about libertarianism. To demonstrate what I mean, I once met a person and I told them I was a Libertarian and he said "oh, aren't they communists or something?" I was in a word flabbergasted.
To run in sheep's clothing would violate the Libertarian Non-Initiation Of Fraud (or force - Also called NIOF) Principle.
Further, once the voters learned of the deception, they would be a lot less likely to vote for us next time. Take a look at Ventura in MN for an example. Jesse the candidate sounded (and claimed to be a stealth) libertarian. He even scored 100/100 on a Quiz board at the state fair.
Jesse the Governor, however, surrounded himself with socialists from the Democrat wing of the boot-on-your-neck party.
Many Libertarians in MN would rather have a root canal, than vote for Jesse the liar again. I imagine many people in the body politic would feel similarly angered if some Libertarian did the same to them.
AFAIK, it would work like this.
1) Do away with the IRS and as much of Social Security as possible.
2) Institute a flat federal sales tax, maybe 5-10%(?). The same untaxed exceptions on things like food still apply. This would give an overall sales tax in the same ballpark as Britain's VAT. 3) Estimate how much taxable money was needed for the average Joe to survive each year, and then figure out how much of that he spent in taxes.
4) Refund him some >1 multiple of that amount.
The important thing is that while net prices would increase across the board, most people would not only get back ~20% of their income that they had previously lost to on-income taxes, they'd get paid _another_ 10% or so with employers not having to match social security payments. The net result is less government spending, simpler and more efficient tax collection, more _progressive_ taxation (oh the irony), and greater disposable income.
Throw in the stated Libertarian agendas of reducing military spending and ending the War on Drugs and you've got yourself a hundred-billion dollar decrease in spending right there.
Still some questions left to be sorted out. For instance, does the refund apply if you don't work at all, or only part time, or whatever? And would a federal tax apply to interstate (e.g., Internet) commerce?
Dyolf Knip
Social Security is 15% (up to ~90K/year) by itself (assuming you are self employed, which would be thier other choice) Medicare is another 9% (OK, not actually positive about this, its been a year since I have done payroll) or so, so its even more than you assume. And then there are loopholes: "need" a new Mercedes? (better still a Hummer, those are a big tax write off) Have the company buy it, and write it as an expense, so it comes out of pre tax income. Do similar things with other purchases. Yeah, the current tax system is SOooo fair.