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 says he'd blow up the UN building "after giving occupants a week to vacate," who has equated FDR to Hitler, and who suggested we chain convicted felons to their beds until their muscles atrophy.
Some of Badnarik's rhetoric is just that, loud talk by someone who has no chance of winning the election. But some of it is lazy thinking. A large part of his reasoning about the income tax is the idea that there is no actual verbiage in IRS codes requiring people to pay income taxes. I wrote about this version of tax protest about a year ago:
I've read Schiff and others who share a similar philosophy about the tax, and what they're saying is loopholes in the law exist that make it illegal for the IRS to collect income tax they way they do. This may or may not be true, and the IRS says it isn't, natch, but it's not important. If the courts ever do find the income tax to be illegal, and many people stop paying, Congress will quickly act to close the loopholes. When they do they will act with the support of the people, who as noted above, want the government to spend that money in the public interest. At best a handfull of lucky resistors will avoid paying the tax and beat the system in court. Bully for them.
Note that what I'm not saying here is that the IRS doesn't run over some taxpayers, and sometimes uses unfair and downright nasty collection methods.
I'm saying that in order to end the income tax you have to convince the voting public that the tax is bad, who in turn elect representatives who will overturn the tax.
In spite of this I'm voting for Badnarik. As Jim Henley says,
"Badnarik is clearly a few cells short of a spreadsheet. This hasn't especially bothered me on the grounds that Michael Badnarik has no chance of becoming President. I view a vote for Badnarik as a vote for the party rather than the man. Now, the LP is itself a few cells short of a spreadsheet I realize. When I say "a vote for the party," I really mean a signal to the Republicans that they've blown their small-government credibility."
I'd add that I'd like to also send a signal to Democrats that they have lost their free-the-common-man credibility, but I doubt they care.
Posted by Walter at October 27, 2004 02:07 PMI'm frustrated when I agree with every strand of a man's argument, then must dispute his conclusion. Right on about Badnarik's flaws. Right on that it's still worth a protest vote. But you're Walter "In Denver." Colorado's a swing state with Coors/Salazar in play, and if George Bush were re-elected after some screwy Florida style recount and we invade Syria or launch some other nutball scheme, I think you might come to regret that vote.
I agree with the endorsement of Pete Guither at Drug War Rant -- Badnarik in Red and Blue states, Kerry in swing states. The Dems won't receive your "message," but if Bush goes,I don't think we'll launch more pre-emptive wars anytime soon.
Just saw your plug for Grits Palestine, TX drug war coverage a while back. Thanks!
Posted by: Scott Henson at October 29, 2004 05:34 AMI can think of plenty of serious reasons to regret a Kerry vote, too.
Posted by: Walter at October 29, 2004 08:37 AM