Friday, April 28, 2006

Michael Badnarik

Michael Badnarik is running for Congress in the 10th District in the state of Texas. He has raised nearly a quarter of a million dollars in his high profile campaign in what will be a 3-way race against both an incumbent Republican and a Democrat.

I'm encouraged whenever I see someone who overcomes odds and has success no matter what obstacles are put in front of them. In my own life I can be derailed so easily when things don't go the way I expect.

The Libertarian Party spends a great deal of money on simply getting ballot access rather than campaigning. Different states have different laws and in many cases once the requirements are fulfilled, lawsuits with the two major parties follow draining an already small supply of funds.

Badnarik came off the momentum he gained from his presidential run in 2004 (that earned about 400,000 votes) and began a run for congress. He already has three billboards up and paid for through the election and more money is rolling in from contributors all over the country. He has outpaced the Democrat for fundraising despite the fact that he doesn't receive money from PACs or from a national party organization.

I'd love to see another Republican ousted from congress and this time replaced with Michael. I don't agree with Badnarik on every issue, though I appreciate anyone who stands up for the law of the land.

Badnarik's website is found here.


little-cicero said...

I keep telling Conservatives, if they don't want their Republican representatives to come back to work this year, vote Libertarian. There can be no louder message that we're fed up with their spending than that of voting Libertarian. Quite frankly, as a 17 year old who is about to register Republican, I'm scared of the Libertarians. If they get a conservative icon like Buchanon to run for President, that candidate will be the next Nader- or worse, Pero.

Esther said...

It's Perot. And I'd be scared of libertarians because they usually own guns and they're big into protecting their property. ;oP

Tracy said...

Unfortunately for you we're already the next Nader. In fact Badnarik pulled in roughly the same amount of votes as Nader in the last election. That's because the LP is a small but national network. We don't use popular icons for candidates, we're a party that actually selects our candidates on principle.

Keep in mind also that the LP is not just a small government alternative to frustrated GOP folks...we're a political home to businessmen, homosexuals, parents, teachers, drug legalization activists, and much more.

As the LP grows it takes from both major parties and engages people who have long been fed up with the system.

little-cicero said...

The problem I have is that at heart I am a social conservative. Society's survival depends on its values, so values do have to be protected if not promoted by government at times. There are ways to do so within the necessary confines of civil liberties. Clearly libertarians will never get the religious vote if they are unwilling to do so.

Tracy said...

If you're a social conservative then we may just part ways. I am personally conservative but I am rational enough to understand that you cannot have freedom for yourself unless you give it to others.

As Thomas Paine wrote:

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."

As a social conservative I only ask you this: Are you willing to have those who disobey the laws you promote to eventually face government force by gunpoint.

That is the natural end to law.

Being personally conservative should not make you automatically promote laws that prevent others access to their vices or habits. To allow the forceful taking of their habit will only eventually allow others to insist yours be taken away also.

That said, your social duty to dialogue and persuade is protected and their hearts may be won. In this way society governs our wants instead of policemen with guns. I'd rather live in that soceity than a 'socially conservative governed' one.

little-cicero said...

Great case for libertarianism, particularly the force at gunpoint part.

Where I disagree on that is in that laws themselves are not enforced by the sword, they are enforced by non-lethal punishments, with the exception of murder. It is only when you refuse to submit to such punishments that your life is threatened, and that is not for the crime of breaking a law, it is for the crime of obstructing the law.

As far as liberty is concerned, there is no contradiction of liberty as long as we are able to dictate the laws that may potentially obstruct liberty through democracy. In other words, democracy supplies the populace with the rope by which it may hang itself. They shouldn't be obstructed from voting in laws that can be considered as revoking their liberty. Their only duty is to look for what's best in society. If the Judiciary finds Constitutional problems, they will be solved by those means.

Tracy said...

You're spot-on with that response...and in doing so sounding more libertarian than a modern-day conservative...dare I say Goldwater-ish at least.

Aside from initiating force against others and the unlawful taking of another person's property of any kind by fraud or deceit...government should exercise great care in law making and enforcement.

Remember, when you give government on some level the green light to take someone's marijuana or property because of the tyranny of a misguided isn't a great leap for them to come for your bibles or guns also.

little-cicero said...

"tyranny of a miguided majority"? I call it "democracy". If you don't like the laws passed by the "misguided majority" then love it or leave it. If law is in place for the good of society, it should be used to such ends as I would imply.

This is very important as a difference in our thinking: What purpose do you believe law is to serve? The betterment of society or just the protection of society?

Tracy said...

I hate to sound like a John Birch society member but I shouldn't be needing to give you a basic civics lesson.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. If you want a democracy join the Elks or something.

Tracy said...

Oh yes...your part on the law.

The law should make society better, but it's goal should be to protect society. Does that make sense?

Not everything that would make society better should have a law enacted. That is why a constitutional foundation must be laid.

It's no coincidence that many of the bill or rights begin with 'congress shall make no law'

We may disagree there which is fine. Thomas Paine and I will stand on this side of the discussion....

Esther said...

I would point out, that we do not have majority rule in our country (I see that this has been addressed, I'm just being an echo). Anyways. Law must to have a foundation. The idea that whatever most people like best becomes the ruling order is a crappy foundation. That is as fickle as the mind of a dictator and can change from generation to generation as quickly as a hurricane changes direction. LC, you tend to make an argument much like Stephen Douglas' community based government argument that would have had each locality choosing it's laws entirely. Under such a system, in one place it could have been illegal to be seen outside without a hat on and in another it could be legal to commit murder on Fridays. There is no guide or basis, no standard for law in the idea of pure democracy. That's why we don't have a real democracy here and I hope we never will.