Michael Badnarik [Libertarian candidate for President 2004]

Michael Badnarik has studied the Constitution for twenty years, and has been teaching an eight-hour class on the subject for the last three years. All of his political positions are derived from the principle of individual rights, and are consistent with the Constitution. He would like to see strict enforcement of the Bill of Rights, and would establish a "zero tolerance policy" for all elected officials who violate the supreme law of the land.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms Michael is most passionate about defending the Second Amendment, and holds that 20,000+ gun laws in the United States unconstitutionally infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Americans are not required to fill out government forms in order to practice their religion, and they cannot be required to obtain government permits before they carry a gun for self-defense. More on this issue »

Education instead of government controlled schools The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was instituted in 1953 at a time when American students ranked number one in math and science worldwide. In 2003, after fifty years of government control of our schools, we spend ten times as much per student on education, and American students now rank twenty-first in math and science. Even if the Department of Education was constitutional - which it isn't - we should eliminate that agency simply because they are doing such a terrible job. Michael's plan would be to eliminate government control of schools, making each one a private business that is required to compete with others in the area. Parents would naturally send their children to the best schools in the area, which would make a significant profit for successful schools. Other schools would either improve their ability to impart knowledge, or they would be forced out of business altogether. More on this issue »

War on Drugs The government's war on drugs violates the rights of Americans so egregiously that it is a bigger threat than the drugs themselves. Libertarians do not want our children taking drugs either, but we recognize that the several decades of drug interdiction haven't slowed the flow of narcotics into this country. Children take drugs because criminals actively sell them. Criminals sell drugs because they are astronomically profitable. Drugs are highly profitable only because they are illegal. The Libertarian solution is to decriminalize drugs, which will make drugs extremely cheap, which will remove the profit motivation for selling drugs, which will result in fewer children taking drugs. More on this issue »

Income taxes The IRS is despised by every American old enough to work for a living. This agency is notorious for confiscating property from citizens without proper due process of law. Michael would eliminate this agency completely, without instituting a flat tax to take its place. Michael would also eliminate the NEED for an income tax by abolishing hundreds of unconstitutional offices and government programs. Americans will experience a sudden increase in their take-home pay when they no longer have money withheld from their paychecks. This will trigger rapid economic growth which means that all of the newly unemployed government workers would be able to find "real" jobs in the private sector.

Restoring a non-inflatable currency Michael would immediately eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank because Congress never had the authority to delegate the responsibility to "coin money and regulate the value thereof". Our current economic crisis has not been caused by the collapse of companies like Enron and WorldCom. They are only symptoms of a more fundamental problem. Our crisis has been caused by ninety years of inflation that has resulted from the Federal Reserve Bank printing money out of thin air.

Patriot Act It is quite possible that this is the most misleading title for any law passed in the history of America. Michael adamantly believes that the Patriot Act is a blatant violation of our rights, given that it ignores the basic concept of a "limited" federal(national) government. For all practical purposes, the Patriot Act repeals the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, and allows the government to assume powers that are not delegated to them by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. There are over 200 cities and nearly a dozen states that have passed resolutions declaring the Patriot Act "null and void".

American intervention in Iraq American aggression in Iraq is unconstitutional because Congress has never declared war. President Bush is not authorized to send our troops overseas simply because Congress has promised not to censure him if he does. Michael doesn't have enough information to know whether or not the United States should be there or not, however he strongly suspects that the real motivation for being there is probably economic rather than ethical. More on this issue » Read Michael's Speech on Iraq (At Washington University)

Gay marriage/gay adoption Michael is a tireless advocate of INDIVIDUAL rights, and since homosexuals qualify as individuals, Michael can find no rational reason to discriminate against them. Michael claims autonomy over his own life and who he chooses to associate with, therefore two individuals of the same sex who voluntarily choose to live together clearly have the same right to claim that autonomy. Michael also supports the right of same sex couples to raise children in a loving environment. It is ridiculous to think that raising a child in a homosexual household will cause them to become homosexual themselves. Keep in mind that 100% of all homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents, and there was apparently nothing they could do to influence their children to share their preference.

Affirmative Action There are many laws, although passed with all the best of intentions, which only alter the problems they were designed to solve. Affirmative action changes discrimination against minorities, to discrimination for minorities. There are at least two unintended consequences to this policy. First, it establishes reverse discrimination against the majority, which is no more justified than the discrimination it was supposed to eliminate. Second, it casts a shadow on any of the accomplishments achieved by minorities because it is often assumed that their success was attributed to only the policy of affirmative action. If we truly want to establish equality in America, then ALL quota systems should be abolished.

Death Penalty Having the "right to life" implies that we also have the right to keep ourselves alive in the face of a violent attack. Michael thinks that the best time to administer the death penalty is by the potential victim a few tenths of a second before the crime can be committed. (In other words, in obvious self-defense.) Michael feels that, at least philosophically, the government is perfectly justified in carrying out the death penalty for the victim and his or her survivors when there is incontrovertible evidence. Nonetheless, Michael does not feel any satisfaction in terminating anyone's life, even if they are sociopathic. For that reason, Michael would be satisfied if violent criminals sentenced to life in prison actually SPENT life in prison. Given the opportunity, Michael would like to change one aspect of prison life to increase the safety of the people guarding them. Instead of allowing them to lift weights and exercise several hours per day (making them violent AND powerful), Michael would require them to remain in bed all day for the first month, and twelve hours per day after that. This lack of activity would allow their muscles to atrophy, making them helpless couch potatoes incapable of inflicting very much violence on each other, the guards, or unsuspecting citizens should they manage to escape. Michael also likes the idea of requiring them to submit one book report a week, encouraging them to strengthen their minds instead of their bodies.

Abortion Michael would like to begin by emphasizing the fact that this is a states rights issue, and should not be handled by the federal(national) government at all. He would also like to point out that at least half of the people who read this will not be happy with his answer, therefore it would be politically expedient to refuse to comment on it. He is very proud of the fact that he never makes any decisions solely because they are politically expedient. Please have the courtesy of reading his answer completely before jumping to any predetermined conclusions. Michael used to be "pro-choice" based on the presumption that a woman owns her own body. Neither government agents nor he has any authority to mandate what she does or does not do with her body. More recently Michael came to the logical conclusion that the baby must eventually claim ownership of ITS own body, as well. The abortion debate exists because of a disagreement about precisely when that happens. At this point in time, because there is no scientific consensus, Michael chooses to error in favor of the baby, and now holds that abortion is a violation of the baby's right to life. HOWEVER, Michael would NOT use government force to enforce this personal opinion, as some have chosen to assume. Michael does not claim to have the definitive answer to this perplexing problem, but most voters feel a need to know what a candidate's thought process is on many different subjects. This answer is merely an attempt to satisfy that need.

What a weak presidential candidate. You mean to tell me that 3% of Freepers are actually going to vote for this guy? He needs to do better than this.

Americans are not required to fill out government forms in order to practice their religion

They are if they don't want to be taxed for it in various ways.

The Libertarian solution is to decriminalize drugs, which will make drugs extremely cheap, which will remove the profit motivation for selling drugs, which will result in fewer children taking drugs.

Why would they be "extremely cheap" when there is a black market already available? There will certainly be a profit motive, just as many prescription drugs are sold illegally. Why would fewer children take drugs when the risk of punishment for taking them will be removed?

Michael would also eliminate the NEED for an income tax by abolishing hundreds of unconstitutional offices and government programs.

First of all, how does he think he is going to accomplish this unilaterally, without Congress? Secondly, as long as there is any government, there will be taxes to pay for it. So is he going to limit government (still need taxes) or abolish government? I think most of America supports some form of government. Also, taxes are constitutional.

Americans will experience a sudden increase in their take-home pay when they no longer have money withheld from their paychecks. This will trigger rapid economic growth which means that all of the newly unemployed government workers would be able to find "real" jobs in the private sector.

Well he said he'd eliminate the need for an income tax, but as long as there is government, the need for taxes HASN'T been eliminated. So where will the funding come from? What form of taxation would he substitute for income taxes? And how will it trigger economic growth unless all of that money the government is saving is returned to the people? I didn't see anything about tax CUTS. Just reduced spending. Perhaps this is just an oversight. Also, is he planning on repealing the 16th amendment all by himself?

American intervention in Iraq American aggression in Iraq is unconstitutional because Congress has never declared war.

Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. This is also known as a declaration of war.

Michael doesn't have enough information to know whether or not the United States should be there or not, however he strongly suspects that the real motivation for being there is probably economic rather than ethical.

Don't tell me he's a conspiracy nut holding up "No War For Oil" posters. How has the war in Iraq benefitted the US economically? And isn't a better reason the fact that Iraq is a terrorist state, and regime change in Iraq can help stabilize the Middle East?

Well I'm glad he admits what he doesn't know, but I hope he figures it out between now and November. It's kind of a big deal.

Michael is a tireless advocate of INDIVIDUAL rights, and since homosexuals qualify as individuals, Michael can find no rational reason to discriminate against them.

Homosexuals have the same exact right to marry as anyone else, along with foot fetishists, cross-dressers, and masochists. A man has the right to marry a woman no matter what his sexual proclivities, as long as she is not related to him and neither is already married. And vice versa.

Michael claims autonomy over his own life and who he chooses to associate with, therefore two individuals of the same sex who voluntarily choose to live together clearly have the same right to claim that autonomy.

Who is stopping them from "claiming autonomy"? Who is stopping them from associating with whomever they choose?

Keep in mind that 100% of all homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents, and there was apparently nothing they could do to influence their children to share their preference.

Not only is this illogical, it is also untrue. 100% of homosexual children may well have been created by the physical union of a man and a woman, but there is no guarantee that the two parents were heterosexual, nor any reason to believe that they raised the child. There are homosexuals who were raised by same-sex partners, and MANY homosexuals raised by single parents. So it is not true that 100% of homosexuals had heterosexual parents. In fact, this is so illogical it is useless to answer it.

Having the "right to life" implies that we also have the right to keep ourselves alive in the face of a violent attack.

Well, unless you're in the womb and then you only have the right if your state says so...right?

Michael does not feel any satisfaction in terminating anyone's life, even if they are sociopathic.

But it isn't for YOUR satisfaction Mr. Badnarik. It's the only way to ensure that person will never take another life. And more siginificantly, it's the only proper balance for the life they took.

Michael would require them to remain in bed all day for the first month, and twelve hours per day after that. This lack of activity would allow their muscles to atrophy, making them helpless couch potatoes incapable of inflicting very much violence on each other, the guards, or unsuspecting citizens should they manage to escape.

This guy watched the movie Se7en and actually got ideas! Who is going to pay for the medical bills that will result from this cruel and unusual punishment? This is torture. You may or may not have a problem torturing sociopaths Mr. Badnarik, but it is unconstitutional. Unlike capital punishment.

Michael would like to begin by emphasizing the fact that this is a states rights issue, and should not be handled by the federal(national) government at all.

Well if you believe that abortion violates both a child's right to life and its property rights, how can you say this is a "states' rights issue"? Since when are these fundamental rights granted by the state?

All in all, is this the best the Libertarian Party can do?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.