John Hospers, founder of the Libertarian Party and a leading light of the movement, endorsed George Bush for President. Meanwhile

Radley Balko and others have been writing about some glaring problems with Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. This is a guy who gives seminars advocating that the federal income tax is optional, who refuses to use zip codes, who…

http://timwest.blogs.com

It’s a lonely job, and it dont pay well. :)

Yeah, that’s how I feel. I’m not completely in agreement with Radley Balko, but he makes several good points about why neither Bush nor Kerry is much of a choice.

The recent news Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s thyroid cancer has supposedly made t…

Radley Balko explains why Badnarik is unacceptable:Given how close this election is, even if Badnarik does worse than Harry Browne…

I think that liberalism is dying and will become divided between the liberals, in the sense of supporting freedom, and liberals in the sense of being left-leaning. A lot of Republicans will join the former, but more will remain conservatives. I think that the left in this country will wither into the kind of political force represented today by American Socialists.

If some you have perspectives that so are so narrow that Badnarik seems ‘fringy’ then you’re going to are probably going run sputtering when you peek at my proposals like mandatory anonymous campaign financing, enlarging the U.S. House of Representatives, allowing voters to CHOOSE the congressional constituency they wish to vote in, how an enlarged House would greatly diminish the tie(close) vote issue in the Electoral College issue, why electronic vote machines are a car load of scrap, etc., etc.

See you on the ballot in 2006?

Interesting reply to those who criticize you for not mentioning Badnarik in your Fox column.

However, those who thought that perhaps you had been ordered by Fox not to mention him aren’t conspiracy theorists. One prominent Libertarian — Dean Ahmad — was invited onto Fox (“The O’Reilly Factor”) to explain why, as a Muslim, he would not be voting for Bush. He was then told, at the last moment, that he must not mention Badnarik’s name on the air. He ended up declining to appear (and his replacement, who was not known as a partisan Libertarian, DID mention Badnrik, apparently to O’Reilly’s consternation).

It was that event which some had in mind when they speculated about the non-appearance of Badnarik in your column.

Apart from that? Well, I’m glad you didn’t mention him, given your apparent dislike for him as a candidate. I don’t share that dislike (I work for the campaign), but I’m glad that you went after the bad guys instead of after a good guy you’d have felt compelled to say bad things about. Thanks for a good column, and I’m sorry that the response provoked you into saying things that you’ll hopefully regret later.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Matthew – Let me take this opportunity to explain that there will never be more than a two party system in this country. In a simple majority, a third party will always coalesce with one of the parties and thus win the election every year. As new parties form, they too will join onto one of the two major parties. Get over it; it can’t change because the only people who can change the system are the ones that got put in power by that very same system. The only hope to bring libertarianism to the forefront of American politics is to turn the Republican (or, 100 times better and 100 times harder, the Democratic) party into a group of libertarians. I think in the end, we’ll have libertarians versus the socialists. We already have the socialists, so now we need to work on the libertarians.

When he was first nominated, I weeped and moaned for the LP. But since then, he has taken down the crazy criminal punishment positions from his sight and has proved to be a pleasant surprise.

I for one hope Badnarik gets all the media exposure in the world. While I would rather have a more intellectual libertarian running (such as someone from the Cato Institute), it would be hard to find one that had Badnarik’s speaking abilities.

All in all, I like Mike. I’m voting for him. And God bless him. After all this is over I’ll be glad to have him as a guest in my home any time he’s in NC.

Because you are in a swing state is the exact reason you should be voting for the LP candidate!!!

No one cares what percentage a third party gets in states that don’t matter. By being in a swing state your vote for the LP has the chance to make a difference. An impact that the third parties need. Please reconsider.

He still believes in the state as legitimate after all.

Or do you fault him because he practices what he preaches? Would you fault Thoreau? Would you fault Ghandi or Jesus?

Libertarianism is every libertarian’s sacred cow, yet each has their own fortified position on what the philosophy should be in the political arena.

So it is much more fashionable to disregard those crazy LPers because “they don’t really represent libertarianism” and fall in line with the rest of the apathetic, inactive sheeple doing absolutely nothing to change the political landscape toward freedom.

Educate all you want, and write all you want about libertarian solutions, but if no solution is presented to change the political arena directly, by voting against the major oppressor parties, changing them from the inside, or other reality changing measures (by market solutions or what have you), you’ll only end up with disenfranchised subservient masses of pissed off intellectuals with no ideas but to wait for death (because freedom ain’t coming by itself).

So for a guy who was months in contemplation of voting for Kerry, but won’t even launch a protest vote in favor of massive freedoms now because it might embarrass his delicate sensibilities…. to blast Badnarik for practicing what he preaches?

Lame.

I mean, that totally makes more sense, thanks for talking me out of wasting my vote on Badnarik. He’s fucking nuts with his whole “Constitution” and “government abiding by the Bill of Rights.” Who ever heard of such crazy shit?

Michael Badnarik is a fake Libertarian. Michael Badnarik is in reality a member of the “Sovereign Citizen Movement”. He’s just masquerading as a Liberterian. In fact, the loonies in the “sovereign citizen movement” have had plans to infiltrate…

It’s a real shame, though. I think a sane, moderate Libertarian with a scrap of leadership ability would actually represent a majority of Americans’ positions.

But for a small-l libertarian to not vote for him – ESPECIALLY IN A SAFE STATE – is even nuttier.

LD – there are lots of ‘moderate libertarians’ in the party, we’re just outnumbered by the purists such as Badnarik. Try joining your local LP and make a difference.

First, both Fox and my current employer would present problems to me formally endorsing any candidate for president in a column — Fox because it’s against policy, Cato because of Cato’s non-profit status.”

Radley, I usually agree with you on many issues, but this one, I’m frankly surprised. First you say that Fox has nothing to do with your decision to not mention Michael Badnarik and then you say that they DID have something to do with it.

While you point to two highly inflammatory articles about Michael, you don’t mention any of the good stuff which I think far outweighs any of the bad. Plus one article was from several months ago and if you were to talk to or interview Michael today, I think you’d see that he’s far more polished.

I also had the pleasure of meeting Michael Badnarik in person this week and have taken his constitution class. While I agree that he seems a tad naive about how he will handle things when he gets into office, I think that those ideas will succumb to reality.

But the fact of the matter is that we have 535 members of Congress and a President who are all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and they do everything in their power to destroy it and ignore it on a daily basis.

I’m voting for Michael Badnarik because I believe that he would IN FACT protect and defend the constitution of the United States. And because I believe that if enough people who are fed up with the “lesser of two evils” vote for Michael Badnarik then the message that gets sent to the “reigning parties” will be loud and strong for sure.

Jeanne

Perhaps Radley is more concerned about the triumph of ideas than the triumph of candidates. I know this is a novel concept for everyone who lives in the world of political factionalism, but parties and people change. The Republican party of Lincoln is no longer the Republican Party.

It was the triumph of certain ideas within diverse segments of the population that caused that realignment. Ideas are more permanent and they continue across generations–just as classical liberalism (the thought of the founders) now finds its outlet in an odd mix of conservatism and libertarianism.

Perhaps Radley would rather libertarian philosophy continue in a purer form, with both parties (or all parties) adopting those ideas that triumph than the word “libertarian” take on the same connotations as “Republican” and “Democrat” have today. If libertarian economics, for instance, had been initially equated with a group of nutcase politicians, would free trade have made such stunning leaps forwar d in the last century. Just a thought.

-John