hit "refresh" or "reload" to view the ad again
President George W. Bush: "I'm George Bush and you can trust ME to run your life."Senator John F. Kerry: "I'm John Kerry and you can trust ME to run your life."
Independent Candidate Ralph Nader: "I'm Ralph Nader and you can trust ME to run your life."
Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Michael Badnarik: "I'm Michael Badnarik and I trust YOU to run your own life."
It is quite obvious Mr. Badnarik is correct on the first three counts. The few feeble attempts President Bush has made towards real, objective reductions in the reach and power of government are more than outweighed by the status quo supporting, shift-revenue-from-here-to-there, anti-personal freedom stances he's taken over the years. Senator Kerry is roughly the same; his few stances that oppose Bush's social tyranny are more than outweighed by his support for even more economic tyranny. Thus, the infuriating false dichotomy of social liberty verses economic liberty continues.
Ralph Nader has one thing going for him: his belief that the Democratic and Republican parties represent two sides of the same coin and that they pander, subsidize, prioritize, and treat their government-hungry donors and sponsors over the interests of other Americans. There are exceptions, of course, but the two parties differ on fundamental political philosophy very little. On the other hand, Mr. Nader is also part of that same coin. Nader would be utterly disastrous to personal freedom, wanting to do more damage than either President Bush or Senator Kerry. His collectivism towers over Bush's and Kerry's.
So what about Mr. Badnarik? I took a peek at his stand on some issues last time, but does his rhetoric match his advertisement? I realize this is a high bar to set, asking a would-be politician to follow through on his or her word and checking to see if the reality of the person's positions matches the reality of what is said to support them. But I'm quirky like that.
I must note that am disappointed to see several pages of his website have been taken down:
On health care and drug costs, he says
I would end excess regulation of pharmaceuticals, health care providers, and insurance companies. Physicians will be held liable for malpractice, but not for problems beyond their control.[...]
Tax credits can then be extended to any person or organization funding Health Savings Accounts for themselves or others. With such tax incentives to aid in charitable gifting, Medicare or Medicaid recipients can transition into their choice of private health insurance, allowing rapid privatization of these programs.
[on drug prices]
Why have drug prices risen so steeply in the past several decades?
The answer is excessive FDA regulation. In 1962, Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Amendments, in the wake of the European thalidomide tragedy. This sweeping legislation meant that pharmaceutical firms had to go through more elaborate animal and human studies. New regulations made manufacturing more costly. Advertising had to undergo an approval process by the FDA.
We could slash pharmaceutical prices overnight by ending these regulations.
His tax credits idea is certainly interesting, but wouldn't it just be better to slash income taxes in general? Adding complexity to the tax code is something we should be avoiding. I'm not much more enthusiastic for the idea if he advocates eliminating 90% of all federal tax loopholes, exemptions, and special cases. If that's the case, then why not stop dicking around and just hack the tax rates down for all brackets by the same amount that eliminating those complexities would create?
Still, it's a far better approach than what we hear from the other guys.
See final note below.
On gun control, he says
Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.
Obviously, I'm in favor of this. But why equivocate with "unconstitutional"? He says he stands for individual rights, so therefore he should support no gun control laws. Perhaps I'm just misreading him.
See final note below.
On minority discrimination, he says
Throughout our nation, entrepreneurial African-American hair braiders have been similarly threatened. Would-be van operators and taxicab owners face prosecution unless they pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a permit. In some areas, newcomers are routinely denied permits no matter how much they are willing to pay. Minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged have a difficult time jumping these costly hurdles.[...]
Barriers to self-employment discriminate against minorities because few can afford the time and money necessary to tackle the red tape. Even minorities who would never start their own business get more respect from employers when they have the option to choose differently.
Minorities don't need preferential treatment to get ahead - they are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as other Americans.
[...]
If you elect me as your president, I promise to end the economic discrimination that government regulations and licensing laws have imposed upon minorities.
On gay marriage, he says
Establishment politicians can't solve this real world problem because they aren't asking the tough question: "Should lovers jointly decide what their marriage will be or should government dictate the terms of their most intimate union?"Today, of course, government decides if a couple is even permitted to marry through a licensing process. In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as it can be denied to gay couples today.
[...]
Like every partnership, marriage should fit the individuals it unites, rather than be a "one-size-fits all" proposition defined by those outside the relationship. Each marriage should be what the partners want it to be - ;no more, no less. Ideally, the terms of marriage should be defined ahead of time with procedures to modify them as necessary.
Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role in marriage should be the same.
On unemployment, he says
The answer is too much regulation and too much government spending.[...]
We know how jobs are destroyed: too much regulation and too much government spending. We know how to reverse the process; we've done it before. If you elect me as your president, I promise to downsize government instead of your job!
On the war on drugs, he says
The federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere with state drug policies.[...]
On a fundamental level, Libertarians believe that it is the unalienable and constitutional right of individuals to medicate themselves and choose for themselves what to put into their bodies, as long as they live up to the consequences of their actions. The federal government has no proper say in the matter, and state governments violate the rights of the people in their own attempts to enforce morality. The decision to ingest, smoke or consume any drug should be up to the individual, under the advice of his or her physician, when appropriate. Locking people up for trying to relieve their pain is cruel and unusual punishment for an act that hurts no one.
The Drug War has led to some of the worst violations of the constitutional liberties of Americans, as well as to the worst wave of violent crime in American history since Alcohol Prohibition. It has been used to rationalize unlawful searches and seizures, corruption of the court system, no-knock raids, racial profiling, and "civil asset forfeiture" - a policy whereby government officials can confiscate private property without even charging anyone with a crime. The War on Drugs, more than anything else, has served as a means of destroying the Bill of Rights. It has also led to excessive taxes and spending, costing more than 40 billion dollars a year to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent drug offenders.
On the war in Iraq, he says
As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.[...]
People in the Middle East, do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.
The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results.
[...]
It is a contradiction to forcibly institute a democracy where the majority wants nothing to do with it.
Here at home, war leads to a decline in civil liberties, higher taxes, and wartime economic measures that blur the line between business and state, and allow politically favored corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.
[...]
In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world.
TLE: You have a well-deserved reputation for your knowledge of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. At the same time, you're a libertarian of good repute and long standing. In your opinion—the opinion of a potential President of the United States—what comes first, the Zero Aggression Principle or the Constitution?BADNARIK: The Zero Agression [sic] Principle, of course! That principle is summarized by the Declaration of Independence which states that ALL men are created equal, asserting that their rights to life, liberty, and "property" are unalienable. The purpose of the Constitution is simply to outline a form of government that will put the Zero Agression [sic] Principle into practice.
Also in the interview are some other tidbits worth mentioning.
I am opposed to ANY individual taxes until we eliminate all of the unconstitutional agencies, and I suspect we wouldn't need a tax after that.[...]
The only type of rights that exist are INDIVIDUAL rights. There is no such thing as "community rights" because communities do not exist in the literal sense. They are abstract concepts. Only the individuals within a community have rights.
[...]
In order for the United States to survive economically, we need to reestablish a non-inflationary currency based on some commodity, not necessarily gold and silver, though I admit a preference to precious metals. Eliminating the unconstitutional Federal Reserve is a logical and necessary first step.
In his policy paper on the drug war, Mr. Badnarik says this
Libertarians would hope and expect most states to come around and severely reform their policies to make them more humane and less at odds with the Constitution and the American way of life.
Given that he teaches a class on the Constitution (part 1 in MP3 form here), he should know that the President doesn't have much, if any, control over the legislation produced by the states. Additionally, any impact he'd have as President would be greatly, greatly, tempered by Congress and the collectivists within. He might be able to put together a grand package of genuine limited government proposals, but are the House and Senate going to pass them?
Anyway, given what we know of his positions now, I'd say that his rhetoric almost matches the reality of his positions. He was booked for the O'Reilly Factor a few days ago, but that got cancelled. He does, however, have a lot of media appearances coming up and has a scheduling section on his blog. Keep an eye out.
UPDATE(7/9/2004 10:03am)
Looks like Badnarik and his team weren't the first to come up with the ad idea. I found this PDF newsletter from the September 2000 edition of Liberty News, published by the Boulder County Libertarian Party. On page 9, there is a letter from Chuck Wright, LP candidate for Colorado's 17th State Senate District. It opens:
Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan: "I'm Pat Buchanan and you can trust me to run your life."Republican Party candidate George W. Bush: "I'm George Bush and you can trust me to run your life."
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader: "I'm Ralph Nader and you can trust me to run your life."
Democratic Party candidate Al Gore: "I'm Al Gore and you can trust me to run your life."
Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne: "I'm Harry Browne and I trust you to run your own life."
That's why I'm a Libertarian. I prefer to run my own life rather than having some politician run it for me. If you prefer to run your own life rather than having politicians run your life for you, vote Libertarian.
Mr. Badnarik has some new position papers up.
On the crime prevention and punishment, he says
Crime rates go down when offenders must compensate their victims and responsible citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons. Privatizing police gives them incentive to emphasize prevention and focus on violent, rather than victimless, crimes.[...]
Only one industrialized nation has succeeded in consistently lowering its crime rates since World War II. Japan emphasizes restitution to the victim, rather than punishment of the criminal. Once caught, offenders must formally apologize to their victims and enter into a compensation agreement in order to get leniency from the court. They learn the extent of the damage they do and the cost of rectifying it.
Such restitution is the most effective rehabilitation known. Further crime is discouraged when young perpetrators must compensate their victims. If offenders had to pay the cost of their apprehension and trial as well, this justice system might even become self-supporting.
On free trade as opposed to state capitalism, he says
Although free trade is a blessing, managed bureaucratic trade is not. It is a dangerous misconception to think of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international quasi- governmental structures as free trade organizations. They rely on thousands of pages of confusing regulations and corrupt agreements between multinational corporations and oppressive governments. True free trade - the kind that fosters peace - does not depend on such organizations and rules, but is actually hindered by them. Managed trade - the kind that fosters resentment and poverty - is all that these organizations have so far delivered.The managed trade that we see today, where politically connected corporations and favored nations get special deals, is anything but free; it is no more and no less than mercantilism, the same economic system that Adam Smith railed against in The Wealth of Nations, when he saw the inefficiency and aggression of imperial governments endowing special privileges to state-sponsored cartels and forbidding those without power to exchange with each other in peace.
Libertarians want to see free trade between individuals, where people become less dependent upon their governments and the WTO and IMF, where instead they become connected in peaceful commerce, where the power and influence of governments and bureaucratic trade agreements diminish to make way for a world in which there are relationships between people, rather than alliances and arm-twisting between states.
[...]
Libertarians understand that government is force. It is coercion and violence. It is not an answer to the world's problems or a way to bring about international friendship. We look forward to a time when state power declines, corporations and special interest groups no longer have an unfair advantage, and individuals are allowed to live and cooperate harmoniously and in peace. Free trade is a necessary component in ushering in a peaceful tomorrow.
UPDATE(1:42pm)
From his blog:
The best thing that could happen to our federal government would be if every American stopped paying income taxes. This would force the government to reduce spending to the limits established by the constitution, and prove that a government limited to its constitutional functions doesn’t need an income tax.But most Americans have families who depend on them—and can’t afford to take the risks involved in standing up to the IRS.
My situation was different. I do not have a family that depends on me. I was putting no one at risk but myself. So I decided to take that risk and follow through on my beliefs by not filing.
But since I received the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President of the United States, that situation has changed. Now there are millions of people depending on me. Because of that, and only because of that, I have taken the legal steps required to determine whether the IRS thinks that I owe them or if they owe me. I do not have that answer yet.
My party has always demanded an end to the income tax. As your president, this will be one of my first goals.
Yours in Liberty,
Michael Badnarik
UPDATE 9/22/2004 1:03pm
Slashdot has posted a Q&A with Badnarik:
Last monday, you were given the chance to Ask Questions of the Libertarian Party's US Presidential nominee, Michael Badnarik. Today we present to you 15 of the most highly rated comments, and the answers from the man himself. Thanks to Mr. Badnarik for taking the time to talk to us.
UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:22pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information
UPDATE 10/10/2004 2:43pm
Michael Badnarik has been arrested while protesting his exclusion from the presidential debates.
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.