Badnarik's VP is an Embarrassment!

[afcassidy]

THIS is why third parties get no where... they nominate oddballs for President who have no political experience, military leadership experiences, or private enterprise success under their belt.

From Politics1.com...

LIBERTARIAN V.P. NOMINEE TOUTING FAKE DOCTORATE. Last month we wrote about Libertarian Presidential nominee Michael Badnarik refusing to get a driver's license, use zip codes, or pay federal income taxes. It turns out his Vice Presidential nominee is just as unconventional. Psychologist and attorney Rich Campagna occasionally touts himself as "Dr. Campagna" and holds himself out as "a multi-disciplinary professional." What makes no sense is why a guy with real Ivy League B.A. and M.A. degrees, another legit M.A. degree, and a real J.D. degree, would need to embellish his resume by adding a Ph.D. from the American College of Metaphysical Theology. If you'd like a Ph.D. from that school, you can get it for just $249 (see the school's website, as they're for sale right from the homepage). Campagna explains that he had nearly completed his Ph.D. studies in psychology at the University of Iowa when he withdrew from the program in 1993 "for a plethora of complex personal, familial, professional and philosophical reasons." Afterwards, Campagna decided he "chose to craft my own educational destiny and final degree of distinction in a manner that any libertarian would appreciate" (to wit: by buying it from a diploma mill). "I am proud of the ACMT degree and the unique methodology I employed to obtain same ... The institution in question is not a fraud; it does exactly what it says it will do. It promises no qualifications for licensure ... Considering the travels I have engaged in, the practical experience obtained and the time, energy and moneys expended to finally obtain this degree, I do not feel compelled to blush from mentioning this degree in my resume. The manner of obtaining this degree ... is part of my campaign, part of my identity and in a way, part of my platform stance on 'freedom of choice' in education," he defiantly explained in a written statement. Talk about Orwellian New Speak, but who knew that "Educational Choice" included buying fake degrees!

And if you wanna read about Badnarik's refusal to get a driver's license...
http://www.politics1.com/blog-0704a.htm#badnarik

And the school's website...
http://www.americancollege.com

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

OK, according to the article:

Badnarik "believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax." Accordingly, he hasn't filed any federal tax return in many years.

Has Badnarik ever heard of the 16th Amendment?  
It sounds like this guy belongs in jail.  

[Dr. Cynic]

Being Libertarian is great. They are original in their ideals. But even though they oppose the income tax, most still pay it!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I oppose payroll taxes and sales taxes...but I still am perfectly willing to pay them.  Our tax policy is decided by the political process, and our society would collaspe if everyone just paid the taxes they wanted to pay.  Seriously, people who deliberately refuse to pay taxes should be imprisoned.

[swarch]

Badnarik's campaign manager has seen to it that tax returns have been filed. My understanding, although second-hand, is that Badnarik is actually due a modest amount of refunds. Although I respect him for originally standing up for his beliefs, he never expected to become the nominee, and the situation was indeed a potential source of embarrassment.

I don't know what's sillier about Campagna's doctorate, the fact that it's from a diploma mill or the "discipline" it's in. Go figure.

LP presidential candidates often have more private sector experience than many Demopublicans. A few have also had political experience:

Hospers: philosophy professor
McBride: Virginia elector who voted for Hospers/Nathan (first woman to receive an electoral vote) instead of Nixon
Clark: corporate lawyer
Bergland: businessman (unsure on this one)
Paul: congressman (Republican-TX)
Marrou: state legislator (Libertarian-AK)
Browne: best-selling investment author
Badnarik: computer scientist

[Dr. Cynic]

I agree Gov. Nick.

[swarch]

I oppose payroll taxes and sales taxes...but I still am perfectly willing to pay them.  Our tax policy is decided by the political process, and our society would collaspe if everyone just paid the taxes they wanted to pay.  Seriously, people who deliberately refuse to pay taxes should be imprisoned.

Some government programs would collapse, but not society. If taxes--as opposed to user fees--are so great, why do they have to be compelled by the threat of imprisonment? If enough people were happy with government programs, they would pay for them voluntarily. Like many other posters on this board, I contribute to charitable causes, and would have a lot more to contribute in the absence of government inefficiencies and boondoggles.

[Gabu]

If taxes--as opposed to user fees--are so great, why do they have to be compelled by the threat of imprisonment? If enough people were happy with government programs, they would pay for them voluntarily. Like many other posters on this board, I contribute to charitable causes, and would have a lot more to contribute in the absence of government inefficiencies and boondoggles.

I think it's more just that a lot of people don't think about the fact that their tax money actually goes somewhere rather than simply getting sucked up in a governmental vacuum.  It's not that they're consciously disapproving of government programs.

Some people probably evade taxes for your given reason, but I would bet that the majority doesn't.

[afcassidy]

I respect Paul and Marrou for their experience.  Browne as well, though he ran fairly disorganized campaigns.

Badnarik was a candidate for state house in 2002, I think... and he got around 2-3% of the vote.  That alone should be a clue that he's not much of a campaigner and cannot attract a great deal of support.

Seems like they had 2 fairly good choices for the nomination (Russo or Nolan) and they went with the hardcore nut-jobs instead.  I really don't understand why, though....

Fear of success? lol

[John Dibble]

Considering the attention you're giving this, I'd say someone doesn't want Libertarians to 'steal' votes from Bush. If you really want to say a third party is insane, how bout the one that has a porn star as it's presidential nominee? Why is this even an issue anyways? It's a useless degree, and as you stated he's obviously educated and has real degrees. Our candidates may have their quirks(and really, think about it, it's just a quirk, not a big deal at all), but they are honest about their views - can the Republicans or Democrats make that claim consistently?

Anywho, one can't blame Badnarik for the V.P. choice, that decision was made by the delegates at the LP convention(we do things differently, at our convention the candidates aren't already decided in advance), and likely he got the V.P. nomination because he perfromed better than his opponents at the debates(same way Badnarik got nominated).

[swarch]

I respect Paul and Marrou for their experience.  Browne as well, though he ran fairly disorganized campaigns.

Badnarik was a candidate for state house in 2002, I think... and he got around 2-3% of the vote.  That alone should be a clue that he's not much of a campaigner and cannot attract a great deal of support.

Seems like they had 2 fairly good choices for the nomination (Russo or Nolan) and they went with the hardcore nut-jobs instead.  I really don't understand why, though....

Fear of success? lol

Haa haa!

What happened was that some Nolan supporters indulged in negative campaigning against Russo. Badnarik was above this and did so well in the debate--remarkable, given that there was little difference on the issues--that he turned the first ballot into a virtual three-way tie. He squeaked past Nolan on the second ballot and won after Nolan endorsed him. But even without the endorsement, he would have won. He was simply that much better.

[John Dibble]

Seems like they had 2 fairly good choices for the nomination (Russo or Nolan) and they went with the hardcore nut-jobs instead.  I really don't understand why, though....

I was a Nolan supporter myself. However, the reason Badnarik got the nomination is because he apparently beat the tar out of both Russo and Nolan in the debates at our convention(our primaries are non-binding). The delegates felt that he packaged the Libertarian view in a way that would appeal to non-Libertarians.

Anywho, before judging Badnarik, how about you listen to him on the radio or go to an event he holds if you get the chance to do either. Hear him speak his views and you might be surprised.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I oppose payroll taxes and sales taxes...but I still am perfectly willing to pay them.  Our tax policy is decided by the political process, and our society would collaspe if everyone just paid the taxes they wanted to pay.  Seriously, people who deliberately refuse to pay taxes should be imprisoned.

Some government programs would collapse, but not society. If taxes--as opposed to user fees--are so great, why do they have to be compelled by the threat of imprisonment? If enough people were happy with government programs, they would pay for them voluntarily. Like many other posters on this board, I contribute to charitable causes, and would have a lot more to contribute in the absence of government inefficiencies and boondoggles.

Yes, society may in fact collapse if we don't pay for the upkeep of police, the military, and the roads.

People won't pay taxes because they want to get something for free and their individual marginal tax dollar won't degrade government services enough.
Why do people download free MP3s that they could also get by buying a CD...is it because they aren't satisfied with the music?  No, its just they would rather get the same thing for free than have to pay for it.

And how do you charge "user fees" for the military?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Anywho, before judging Badnarik, how about you listen to him on the radio or go to an event he holds if you get the chance to do either. Hear him speak his views and you might be surprised.

I think I've already heard enough about him to know he's a criminal.

[swarch]

I oppose payroll taxes and sales taxes...but I still am perfectly willing to pay them.  Our tax policy is decided by the political process, and our society would collaspe if everyone just paid the taxes they wanted to pay.  Seriously, people who deliberately refuse to pay taxes should be imprisoned.

Some government programs would collapse, but not society. If taxes--as opposed to user fees--are so great, why do they have to be compelled by the threat of imprisonment? If enough people were happy with government programs, they would pay for them voluntarily. Like many other posters on this board, I contribute to charitable causes, and would have a lot more to contribute in the absence of government inefficiencies and boondoggles.

Yes, society may in fact collapse if we don't pay for the upkeep of police, the military, and the roads.

People won't pay taxes because they want to get something for free and their individual marginal tax dollar won't degrade government services enough.
Why people download free MP3 that they could also get by buying a CD, is it because they aren't satisfied with the music?  No, its just they would rather get the same thing for free than have to pay for it.

And how do you charge "user fees" for the military?

Sorry for the confusion.

By user fees, I mean payments where you get something in return. This includes gasoline taxes (unless spent on things other than roads) and taxes for police and the military. I don't have a problem with these, so long as whatever service the government provides is open to competition on a level playing field. Competition in the above areas would be limited (roads and police) or non-existent (military), but government does a lot of things (social security, education) where competition is feasible.

By taxes, I mean payments where you get nothing in return, like all corporate welfare, entitlement programs, and school taxes when you send your kids to non-government schools. These should be funded by voluntary charitable contributions.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It seems to me that libertarians fundamentally don't believe in democracy.
Why?  Because democracy means sometimes having to obey the will of the majority even when you don't agree with it.

This means not engaging in behavior that the majority has designated as a crime, like using drugs. This means following state safety regulations, like requiring a licence to drive.
This is means paying school taxes even when you don't have a kid in public schools.

In a democracy, we are not completely subject to the will of the majority...we have certain rights designated in the Constitution.  But beyond that, democracy means ceding some of our independence to the demands of society.  

Each person has a chance to change the majority's point of view, but if your own point of view loses, being in a democracy means accepting that and not just following the laws you agree with.

Judging from his part actions, it doesn't seem like Badnarik believes in democracy.

[johngalt1234]

It is wonderful that some one took notice of the embarrassment the VP candidate of the Libertarian party is.

To me it is a very positive development because
 There is no reasonf for anyone to read about his resume  if they are so "sure" of the inability of the LP candidate to attract sufficient voters

I would definitely say that the Libertarian message is being disseminated and that a lot more questions are being asked as to why voters have to choose between Kerry and Bush, with similar values.

The values of the Libertarian party are more mainstream than most will give credit for.  I firmly believe that a great many on this board currently who have decided to vote Republican or Democrat, believe in individual responsibility. The Libertarian party has the only platform that allows that by eliminating the income tax and giving freedom to spend their earned money in a way each individual seems proper. The only way you can promote individual responsibility is by having small government.

The Libertarian economic policies are those of Laissez faire capitalism which has proven in the past to be the harbinger of prosperity. It is what this country was founded on.

The focussing on the degrees or some other minor issues are just distractions because they in no way effect the capability of the individuals on the ticket to perform the job when elected to the presidency.

[John Dibble]

It seems to me that libertarians fundamentally don't believe in democracy. Why?  Because democracy means sometimes having to obey the will of the majority even when you don't agree with it.

1. I don't believe in democracy. Democracy is a horrible system prone to what some people like to call the "tyranny of the majority". The majority is often stupid, just remember that. The majority once thought it was alright to own slaves and they were indeed property, but I doubt you'd advocate locking up those who stole that property and let it go free, now would you?

2. What I do believe in is our Constitutional Republic, which by no means is perfect, but is far superior to democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Guess what? Most libertarians don't do drugs(nor do we advocate use, we believe that the drug war just causes more problems than is solves), have driver's licenses, and pay our taxes. And once again, just because the majority designates something a crime does not mean it is an actual crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution means nothing if the people don't enforce it. It is a mere piece of paper written by the people telling government how it will work and what it can and cannot do. Once the people stop enforcing it, it becomes nothing more than a piece of paper.

Please, I'm curious, do you think the Patriot Act is constitutional?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's running for president, how does he not believe in the democratic process? He's part of the democratic process for pete's sake.

As for following laws I disagree with, as I said most libertarians do, but there is only so much that people will tolerate. Remember, by today's standards the founding fathers were criminals.

[ilikeverin]

Who says that we don't want to pay taxes... when we know what it's going to?

My city has voted for tax increases to help pay for our public school district multiple times.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Who says that we don't want to pay taxes... when we know what it's going to?

My city has voted for tax increases to help pay for our public school district multiple times.

Right...people are willing to vote for tax increases on themselves as long as they know that everyone will have to pay the tax.  But if each person individually got to decide whether to pay their own taxes or not, very few would choose to pay them.  It's just like the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Libertarians claim that it's unfair that a majority of people can vote to increase taxes on the whole population...if even one person doesn't want to pay the tax, he shouldn't have to pay it.   Yet occasionally being coerced by the majority is what democracy is all about.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It seems to me that libertarians fundamentally don't believe in democracy. Why?  Because democracy means sometimes having to obey the will of the majority even when you don't agree with it.

1. I don't believe in democracy. Democracy is a horrible system prone to what some people like to call the "tyranny of the majority". The majority is often stupid, just remember that. The majority once thought it was alright to own slaves and they were indeed property, but I doubt you'd advocate locking up those who stole that property and let it go free, now would you?

The slave holding society of the early American was clearly not a democracy...only a very small percentage of our population could vote.  I doubt that we would have held on to slavery for long if every person in American were given an equal voice.

In many ways our current system is not very Democratic either....but it is clearly light years better than it once was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then your party should have nominated someone who reflects your party membership, rather than someone who only obeys the law when he feels like it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know enough about the details of the Patriot Act to know if it is constitutional or not.  By guess is that a number of provision are probably too broad and not closely enough related to vital state interests to pass constitutional muster, but this is to be sorted out by the courts.  I think most of the Patriot Act is unnecessary,  but I respect that those portions which are not struck down by the court are the legitimate product of a democratic society.

[swarch]

It seems to me that libertarians fundamentally don't believe in democracy.

"Democracy is a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."
--H.L. Mencken

[stry_cat]

Before you go saying he's an embarrassment you might want to get the full story:

From http://iowablogs.com/Richard/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[stry_cat]

A product of a flawed process wherein potentially the two nominees could hold very different views. Future Libertarian National Conventions should let the presidential nominee pick his or her running mate like the two dominant parties do.

The Presidential Nominee is allowed to make a statement of preference.  No one individual should be allowed to determine who represents the party.  The current process is fine the way it is.

[??????????]

OK, according to the article:

Badnarik "believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax." Accordingly, he hasn't filed any federal tax return in many years.

Actually this is correct.