June 28, 2004
Evaluation of Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Candidate for President
There have recently been some interesting posts on watchblog about how to get attention for libertarian candidates, and I decided to compliment these with a position-oriented analysis of Michael Badnarik’s candidacy. I accomplished this by using his questionnaire results outlining his views and his position papers on his official campaign website. There are too many issues for me to discuss, so I have picked just a couple of the more interesting ones.
What I like:
1. Income Tax: As a full libertarian on economic issues, I love his plan to eliminate the federal income tax. The income tax punishes people for working- which makes no sense because when people work, American productivity and standard of life goes up. A simple example from a paper I once wrote will explains why I join Badnarik in opposing the income tax:
Suppose that two men work at the same job, and try decide if they are going to work overtime to get more property than necessary to fulfill their basic needs. One of those workers prefers walking in the woods during his leisure time and decides not to work the extra hours, while the other prefers watching movies, and works longer to earn extra money to afford movie tickets. The person with nonmaterial desires proceeds unimpeded in his enjoyment of his leisure time, while the man who wishes to go to the movies, and thus offers his services to someone willing to pay him and helps fund the movie theatre, movie makers, and popcorn makers, has to pay more taxes then his park-walking co-worker.
2. Gay Marriage: His position on gay marriage is a great solution to the current conflict and could draw broad-based support if sold to the American people in exactly the way that Badnarik puts its. He believes that marriages, as far as the law is concerned, should be treated exactly like any other contract and the government’s only role should be to enforce the obligations in the contract. This way, a homosexual couple, a polygamist and his partners, or even two friends who just wanted to raise a kid together, could come together and form a contract with all of the legal trappings they wanted without any government oversight or discrimination. This approach would not only be acceptable to the American people, but would be unequivocally constitutionally required under the contract clause (maybe the left would learn to respect the contract clause if this happened!). As a side note, I do not understand how so many Democrats, who are strongly for gay marriage, can continue to support John Kerry despite his repeated equivocations on the issue.
There are other numerous issues I agree with Badnarik on- from opposing campaign finance laws to eliminating welfare to legalizing drugs to eliminating social security. But these are standard libertarian fare, and I will not go into them into detail unless someone posts in response and wants me to.
What I kind of like:
1. Abortion: Abortion is the one issue that has made me unable to vote for libertarians in the past (see my position on abortion). Badnarik is pretty advanced on the issue, however, recognizing that unborn children have a right to life and do not lose that right just because they are located in a different place (the womb). As a result, he opposes abortion- because opposing the killing of human beings is completely consistent with a libertarian philosophy.
Confusingly, he claims that abortion should be a “STATES-RIGHTS ISSUE.” While this would be a step in the right direction because of Supreme Court’s egregious judicial fiat in Roe v. Wade, Badnarik’s background as a constitutional scholar should have taught him better than to take such a position. The 14th amendment clearly guarantees that all Americans have certain human rights that the states cannot take away. Since Badnarik understand that unborn children are humans, it would be a reversion back to the 1850s to allow them to be murdered in some states but not others. This nation fought a bloody civil war to determine that someone’s right to life does not depend on what state they happen to be in.
What I did not like:
1. International Relations: While Badnarik has a strong grasp of both the importance of constitutionality limited government and human rights, his views on international relations are rather unsatisfactory. Badnarik has a radical isolationist viewpoint. He believes that free trade would prosper if we withdrew from NAFTA and the WTO. He also believes that the Iraq war was a mistake and that we should get out as soon as possible. I think it is a fair summation of his position that he does not think that the United States should ever involve its military in any way unless our safety is directly at stake.
His international views are narrow-minded because the libertarian approach does not operate well when dealing with foreign nations. Libertarians correctly believe that if you remove force and government intervention, people will run their own lives better than the government can. However, hands-off minimal government does not work when we wish to interact with people who live in regimes whose leaders are brutal thugs or limit their people’s freedom in less dramatic ways (like not allowing them to engage in free trade). Also, if all countries ignored every atrocities in the world that didn’t directly threaten them, the rest of the world would likely become overrun with murderous thugs- something that Badnarik must understand is bad for our freedom, as well as morally unacceptable. This is especially compounded by the fact that Badnarik believes the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N., which would leave no organization to protect people without the military might to protect themselves. If we withdraw from the UN, it should be to establish a different international organization that is actually concerned with human rights, not to remove ourselves from concern for such rights outside of our boarders.
2. Internet Policy: Badnarik believes that the federal government should have no role as it relates to the internet and stopping cyber crime. Yet, as a constitutional scholar, Badnarik should understand that our federal government was set up in large part because there are some problems that states cannot handle by themselves. Stopping cyber crime is in the true spirit of the commerce clause, not part of the muddle of unlimited power that the liberal courts have turned that clause into since pushing through the unconstitutional New Deal. E-commerce and e-crime are the very definition of commerce between states and between the U.S. and foreign nations. Moreover, because cyber crime can come from anywhere in the world, it is unrealistic to insist that cyber crime enforcement can occur through the states. Our federal government has a tough enough time trying to prosecute malicious hackers because of international boundaries problems, the states would be completely powerless in this respect.
Posted by Misha Tseytlin at June 28, 2004 05:48 PMMy blather follows:
1. Income tax. I “philosophically” agree with the Badnarik position, but a pragmatist strain in me sees the typical alternative for funding, usually a “sales tax” of some sort, to be fraught with pitfalls for low-income people. I think a tax should be flat, that the cost of living should all be deductible from taxable income, and that income earned that falls short of the cost of living should be supplemented up to that level. My idea would encourage work at the level where it NEEDS such encouragement the MOST—the lower income levels, where the temptations of crime or leaning on relatives or charity are the strongest. (Ironically, I have a Republican friend who’s unemployed and leeches off of friends, and she still thinks that as long as she’s not leeching off of taxpayers, she’s not being a leech.)
2. Gay marriage. I believe in a similar “right to contract” as Badnarik and you both propose, and I might take it a bit farther and even dare to call it “marriage” so long as it involves any consenting adults. I do have some foresight to how this might eventually play out in some traditional religions out there, though, and so I would couple this idea with the right of any churches to refuse to carry out the ceremony of marriage for any people if such ceremony would run counter to their doctrine. Just as people have a right to contract, churches have a right to believe as they will.
3. Abortion. I vary slightly from traditional Libertarian belief and start the clock on a human’s right to life at the time at which a fetus is viable outside the womb (at which time “abortions” can simply be non-fatal procedures to remove). Science will progressively make that time span from conception shorter, and technology will eventually make the abortion question moot, because voluntary fetal transfers can then take place, from women who don’t wish to carry to term, to women who do. Until that time arrives, though, I think my scales tip in favor of a woman’s right to choose.
4. International relations. I’m a believer in clever political strategies of collaboration and containment where possible, but that when hostilities are necessary to maintain our survival (with Afghanistan as an example), then it’s time to go in, and do it right, and if doing it right means shrugging off any international burdens in the process (see the movie “Behind Enemy Lines” to get an idea for what I mean by international burdens), then so be it. A few treaty line-items are negotiable and a part of the diplomatic game, but our troops lives are not to be sacrificed on altars of international glad-handing.
The Iraq war: it was initially a mistake, but then Al Qaeda upped the mistaking ante by moving their operations to Iraq to continue their fight against us. Through their own atrocities they have made their presence known, and now Iraq is officially a part of the war on terrorism (by Al Qaeda’s choice, not Bush’s). We do need to maintain the moral high ground, though, and to always be careful not to become Al Qaeda-like while fighting Al Qaeda. And then advertise that differentiation at every opportunity.
For trade, I believe mostly in “mirror image” policies. If they’re open to our goods, we should be open to theirs. If they violate human rights, count that against any points they earn from openness to American goods. Any benefit to us from importing our goods would be offset by the misery they export (by way of goods produced at slave wages in horrible conditions).
Internet: it is patently, and by definition, interstate commerce (contrary to some of the very tennuous connections made to it by current day federal agencies). With that being said, I would still argue to keep regulation at a minimum and not introduce any taxation therein. The basic internet annoyances I could probably support banning, such as spam and popups—wrap them into existing legislative language banning malicious and harrassing code. Adware is a virus, any way you slice it, and those who make it should be prosecuted. They’re not just swinging their fists—they’re hitting our noses with them.
In defense of Isolationism:
The advantage of having a principled view with regard to foreign policy, as in government conduct in general, is that when Government is acting within the prescribed realm, it is always right (i.e. self-defense). Unfortunately, if we allow the government to go into foreign countries for reasons other than self-defense or “it’s like self-defense but not really”, we get alot of Vietnam, alot of Iraq, and not a whole lot of good.
I’d much rather our government withold our military action than to have it kill innocents or attack corruptly, for political gain, under the guise of humanitarianism. In any large conflict there will be dead innocents, and I would rather not have their blood, as well as the blood of dead American soldiers, on our hands.
It’s a hard line to sell, but if you look at history rather than think about how we might be able to help someone, you’ll see that military engagement in foreign affairs doesn’t work. Worse, it becomes a tool of the state, as in Iraq.
If those people are so important to you, YOU should go, rather than asking our men and women in uniform. It’s a joke, but seriously, you’re sending kids off to die, not to protect us but as humanitarians. That’s not their job.
The best thing we can do is open our arms to political refugees, and serves as a shining example of a free society, where people are their own masters, and everyone is safe from everyone else. As it stands, we’re viewed as the capitalist imperialists. Not good, particularly in their being able to blame capitalism for Iraq, when they should be blaming statism.
Response?
Posted by: Ben W. at June 28, 2004 09:51 PMBadnarik says he’s not an isolationist. He would simply not do the things that put dictators in place to begin with. (Saddam, Iran’s-leader 30 years ago, Cuba, Osama were all funded by the US, that’s why we have to put up with them now)
And his abortion view is the same as mine. (Anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution is reserved for the states as guaranteed by the 10th admendment.) But I do understand your pro-life stance.
“The best thing we can do is open our arms to political refugees, and serves as a shining example of a free society”
Libertarians believe that our immigration laws are so underenforced that be should just abolish them and declare open immigration, but only after SS and Medicare are privatized to stop immigrants from stealing from the system.
I will vote Libertarian because I do not trust people stupid enough to spend millions on a rainforest in Iowa with my retirement money. (People on SS already or near it would continue to get money generated from the sale of excess government resources)
Posted by: Tom Swift at June 28, 2004 10:28 PMAs a side note, I do not understand how so many Democrats, who are strongly for gay marriage, can continue to support John Kerry despite his repeated equivocations on the issue.
I’m not sure why everyone has so much trouble with this concept.
There are two options. Bush wins, or Kerry wins. No, a third party won’t win this election, so let’s not get off on that little tangent.
Kerry doesn’t support gay marriage - he’s always been consistent on that. On the other hand, he doesn’t support a nationwide, Constitutional ban. He also supports rights like civil unions for gays.
Bush, on the other hand, wants to Constitutionally ban gay marriage, and doesn’t support civil unions.
The choice is obvious, really. Lesser of two evils.
Posted by: ceejayoz at June 28, 2004 11:25 PMConcerning the Kerry/Gay-Marriage thing:
I mostly agree with ceejay, I believe the choice really is Kerry or Bush, but there’s more to it too.
Most democrats are afraid of sticking to their guns on this and many other issues, for fear of alienating the swing voters. As a result, they have run an excessively moderate candidate. I don’t like this fact, I would have greatly preferred someone with more passion and more liberal views, but at this point I believe any vote for a third party candidate would help to get Bush back in office and that is something I would like much less.
Posted by: Jarin at June 29, 2004 08:19 AMFor those of you who insist on saying that we need to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, I can only respond with a relevant tract from the late Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 29, 2004 12:43 PM“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
Ben W, you do realize there are terrorists out there who want to kill us, right? Would it not be better to confront them and fight them on their own ground, than on ours?
Stephen VanDyke, your quote is a brilliant illustration of what’s wrong with a two-party system! ;)
ceejayoz and jarin…
A vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ is still evil. Why not bite the bullet and vote your convictions, rather than vote for the one you hate the least?
Another defense of isolationism: If you really want smaller government and more liberty, you’ll never get it if you’re sending the Army around the world looking for trouble. Reagan tried to cut government and grow the military, and ended up with record deficits.
A defense of non-managed free trade: So what if other nations’ governments punish their citizens for buying imported goods? Why should ours?
Posted by: Lex Concord at July 26, 2004 04:46 PMAs a card carrying Libertarian, I applaud those who advocate for stepping beyond the prohibitive two party system that dominates our country. Badnarik certainly does not speak for all Libertarians on every issue, but he is consistent, honest, and believes what he says. He is unequivocally a better choice than either Kerry, Bush, or Nader.
Posted by: J. Scott Lewis at July 31, 2004 03:56 PM
