Timothy Sandefur writes of the Libertarian Party nominating Michael Badnarik as their presidential candidate:
I think the Libertarian Party is far more often an embarrassment than an aid to defenders of freedom.
I wish I could dispute that, but I can't. I'm a longtime libertarian voter, but I don't know that I can vote for Badnarik, who strikes me as a first class loony and a fraud. He is called a "constitutional scholar" on the LP website, but his educational background is in chemistry and his entire work history is in computer software. His views on constitutional law are, from what little I've seen, at about the "internet crank nutjob" level of sophistication. Witness this bit of lunacy from an interview in which Badnarik lays out the first few things he would do as president:
Issue another valid executive order to my subordinates executives working for the IRS. That order would instruct them to come to work, make a pot of coffee, and begin working on their resumes' pending a federal grand jury investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code. High ranking officials from that department would be closely monitored as flight risks, pending indictments for fraud in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form and relinquish a significant percentage of their hard earned money to an unconstitutional government that refuses to operate within a budget.
Look, I'm against the income tax too. I'd like nothing better than to see the income tax done away with. But this crap about arresting IRS officials and declaring the 16th amendment illegitimate is not serious thinking, it's militia-level nonsense. It's the kind of thing that sounds good to stupid rednecks with gun fetishes, but anyone with an IQ over room temperature and any common sense is going to conclude that Badnarik is a wingnut. If you want to do away with the income tax, you fight the political battles to convince people it's a good idea, you don't threaten to arrest IRS officials and convene grand juries to indict them on trumped up charges of fraud. And how about this flagrant demonstration of hubris:
I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.
He also implies that he would have anyone who voted for the Patriot Act arrested:
TLE: If you and I agree that the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional and that the Constitution is the highest law of the landwhich makes the Patriot Act unlawful, would you regard the people who forced it through Congress as criminals and treat them accordingly?BADNARIK: Absolutely!
For crying out loud. Listen, I'm against the Patriot Act and I would vote against any member of Congress who voted for it. But treating them as criminals? Again, this sort of extremist bluster may sound impressive at a militia rally full of drooling morons, but it sounds like something out of a bad Russian movie ("We will arrest the traitors who have betrayed Mother Russia and throw them in prison!"). I think QandO had it right:
It's like the LP is competing with PETA to see who can appear more ridiculous in pursuit of Idealism. 10 out of 10 for standing on principle, but minus a few thousand for doing it in a clown costume.
I am embarrassed for the party I have supported today. And sadly, it seems to be a trend. In 1992, the Libertarian Party had its best nominee in Andre Marrou. He was bright, eloquent, telegenic and moderate in tone. Then for the last 2 cycles they've had Harry Browne, who didn't impress me much. And now they've got Badnarik, who sounds like he's ranting in an internet chatroom. If they can't do better than a yahoo like Badnarik, the Libertarian Party is going to be taken about as seriously as the Natural Law Party.
- Log in to post comments
Search for cheapest wow gold to mmoinn.com it! This is a professional wow gold trading platform, we are able to provide players wow power leveling . Safety mmoinn in both trade and security.
In games like Warcraft and friends to experience the ultimate challenge and adventure? First of all, to strengthen the role of the equipment and skills, but they often have to spend to increase the amount of payment. Mmoinn.com is a good helper to save money, we give you cheap wow gold . At least let you spend more wow gold and wow power leveling . Mmoinn trade in the safe and fast!
Wow ... I never knew that under libertarianism, the President gets to interpret the constitution and tell Congress what to do and order people to be arrested.
So who you gonna vote for, Ed?
The guy sounds like a potential dictator in the making. Libertarianism, like any ideology, is highly dangerous. As soon as you declare yourself the arbiter of orthodoxy and claim the power to punish non-compliant thought, you are 95% of the way to tyrant.
It dson;t matter how well-meaning your orthodoxy is, it's still tyrrany.
Wow ... I never knew that under libertarianism, the President gets to interpret the constitution and tell Congress what to do and order people to be arrested.
That's not a normal libertarian position, it's Badnarik's weird position. The fact that they nominated him just amazes me.
So who you gonna vote for, Ed?
Good question. I have no idea. I have always refused to vote for the two major parties under any circumstances. I may well end up still voting libertarian. I've never voted libertarian because I thought the candidate had any real chance of being elected, I'm not that delusional. I've voted libertarian because I want the party and its ideas to be taken seriously and that was the best way to do it. That may still be the case regardless of the specific man who is chosen to lose this time around. I haven't thought it through enough yet to know what I'm going to do.
The guy sounds like a potential dictator in the making. Libertarianism, like any ideology, is highly dangerous. As soon as you declare yourself the arbiter of orthodoxy and claim the power to punish non-compliant thought, you are 95% of the way to tyrant. It dson;t matter how well-meaning your orthodoxy is, it's still tyrrany.
This strikes me as nonsense. First, because there is no good definition of "ideology". One could very well define a rejection of ideology as an ideology. Second, because it assumes that all ideologies are equally likely to lead to tyranny, and that's obviously false. An ideology that values individual rights and human freedom is obviously not as likely to lead to tyranny as a fascist ideology, which makes tyranny a given.
Clown costume! I love it!
Brayton, I meant to say this earlier: yours is a first-rate blog. I really enjoy it. Thanks for the hard work.
Brayton, I meant to say this earlier: yours is a first-rate blog. I really enjoy it. Thanks for the hard work.
Thanks. Obviously, I feel the same way about yours, which is why I cite your work so often and why I recruited you to join Panda's Thumb. When it comes to some of these issues, sometimes I feel like you and Jon Rowe and I are like a blogging tag team of sanity. LOL
I was being sarcastic about libertarians Presidents being the ones who interpret the constitution and order congress around. You are right, and it was obvious to me, that Badnarik is a kook.
Sounds like you might consider sending a strong letter to party leaders telling them how you object to the choice of a candidate, to the point where you are considering not voting for him. Good luck.
On the general theme of Libertarian wing-nuts, I thought you might find the following interesting. From the Rolly & Wells column, Salt Lake Tribune, 2 June:
"The political season in Utah keeps getting, as Alice would say, curiouser and curiouser.
" Last week, Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Richard Mack announced Hans V. Andersen of Orem as his lieutenant governor running mate, noting that Andersen is a CPA and the son of former LDS General Authority H. Verlan Andersen.
"Not mentioned was the fact that Andersen was the foreman of a runaway federal grand jury in the early 1980s that made national news by issuing an indictment against the Federal Reserve Board for distributing money not backed by gold.
" The indictment, issued without the knowledge of then-U.S. Attorney Brent Ward or presiding federal Judge David Winder, was slipped into a stack of indictments Ward had asked the jury to consider.
" When Ward dismissed the indictment, the grand jury, led by Andersen, tried to sue him for usurping the grand jury's authority and actually had him served with a summons at his home. "
Out of the outreach business, are we, Ed? ;-)
All kidding aside, I flirted with joining the LP for quite a while, and finally decided it was pointless. I did vote for Harry Browne, but after his 9/11 comments I was glad to see him go. Apart from his foreign policy views, he--probably a natural given his background--was on too much about money and too little about liberty. In a way, Browne gave superficial credence to the canard that the LP is "an invitation from the sharks to go swimming." Being free to get rich is a great thing, but many folks who are interested in liberty don't give two hoots about getting rich.
Flatlander, I guess we'll just have to sit back with a beer and see whether the goldbugs or the Hubbert's Peakers get to have their apocalypse first. :-)
Out of the outreach business, are we, Ed? ;-)
LOL. I've never been known for my subtlety. :)
"Wow ... I never knew that under libertarianism, the President gets to interpret the constitution and tell Congress what to do and order people to be arrested."
The President doesn't need to "interpret" the Constitution, and neither should Congress. We the People do that ourselves... so JUST READ THE DAMN THING for yourself. All Badnarik's saying is that Congress must follow the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.
Since there are no controversies over what the framers meant, there is no need to "interpret" it. (The Founding Fathers even told us to check out Madison's notes if there ever were some conceivable ambiguity within the Constitution.)
So why not watch Badnarik's Constitution class on his website BEFORE you make up your mind about how crazy he is?
Since there are no controversies over what the framers meant, there is no need to "interpret" it. (The Founding Fathers even told us to check out Madison's notes if there ever were some conceivable ambiguity within the Constitution.)
What a ridiculous statement. Anyone who truly believes that there are or were no controversies over what the framers meant by various provisions in the constitution is, quite simply, delusional. Anyone who believes that "the founding fathers", as a group, were all of the same mind on most issues, let alone every issue, has swallowed a cartoon version of history that is almost too silly for words. If this is something Badnarik advocates in his "constitution class", then he's even more of a whacko than I thought he was.
"...I thought the candidate had any real chance of being elected "
That's true,the Presedant will belong to either Democratic Party or Republic Party.