How to Empower Minorities Without Reverse Discrimination!
"Prejudice is fading, yet minorities still lag behind economically. A labyrinth of licensing laws and regulations constitute the hidden roots of modern racial and ethnic discrimination."
Most minorities feel that something about our "system" still discriminates against them, but can't quite identify its cause. Establishment politicians propose more quotas and affirmative action, creating animosity between those who are favored by such legislation and those who are not. Since these programs must be funded by taking money from the private sector, jobs, primarily those held by unskilled minorities, are destroyed. The few who benefit from quotas and affirmative action do so at the expense of their less advantaged brethren.
Establishment politicians don't have solutions that work in the real world because they aren't asking the tough question: "What, in these days of diminishing prejudice, stands in the way of minority progress?"
Libertarian Steve Mariotti, mugged for the paltry sum of $10, decided to teach inner city teens how to become successful business men and women so that they wouldn't have to steal. His organization, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE), gave Kansas high school student Monique Landers their annual award when she started her own hair braiding business called "A Touch of Class." The Kansas state government wanted to put teen age Monique in jail for braiding hair without a cosmetology license, which takes a year of schooling and several thousand dollars in tuition to obtain.
Throughout our nation, entrepreneurial African-American hair braiders have been similarly threatened. Would-be van operators and taxicab owners face prosecution unless they pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a permit. In some areas, newcomers are routinely denied permits no matter how much they are willing to pay. Minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged have a difficult time jumping these costly hurdles. Without the ability to go into business for themselves, their opportunities are much more limited than the average middle-class American. Employers can more easily exploit them when self-employment is not an option.
Only Libertarians recognize that the golden door of opportunity has been slammed shut by such regulations. The Institute for Justice, the nation's premiere libertarian public interest law firm, has racked up a number of landmark victories defending—pro bono—minority hair braiders, van operators, and taxicab drivers, and other victims of excess regulation (for examples, see www.ij.org).
Barriers to self-employment discriminate against minorities because few can afford the time and money necessary to tackle the red tape. Even minorities who would never start their own business get more respect from employers when they have the option to choose differently.
Minorities don't need preferential treatment to get ahead—they are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as other Americans. Indeed, Steve Mariotti believes that inner city teens have "street smarts" that give them a great advantage in the entrepreneurial marketplace. As Dr. Michael Porter of the Harvard University Business School remarked: "I cannot imagine a more important and more leveraged thing that we can do to benefit our inner cities than what NFTE is doing."
If you elect me as your president, I promise to end the economic discrimination that government regulations and licensing laws have imposed upon minorities. The legal precedents set by the libertarian litigators at the Institute for Justice will help make that possible. The training provided by organizations like NFTE will give minorities the tools they need to excel—without destroying jobs for the less advantaged among them.
I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions—to give you answers that really work!
This is America- because we're so worried about a 13-year old misuing something, we're going to ban it for everyone. This is gun control logic. Its censorship logic. And now its emergency health logic.
Experts not behind reversal on Plan B FDA bowed to politics, critics say - Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Friday, June 18, 2004
Washington -- Just days before the Food and Drug Administration rejected an application to make the emergency contraceptive Plan B available without a prescription, top FDA scientists dismissed the reasoning that was used to justify the rejection as unfounded, internal agency documents reveal.
The documents, which contain the scientific conclusions of three separate levels of FDA reviewers, show that the scientists disagreed in particular with the contention that there was insufficient information to assess how easier availability of the drug would affect the sexual behavior of young teenagers. That was the primary reason given for the FDA's dismissal of the application as "non-approvable."
One top official wrote that by raising the issue of teenage use, former Commissioner Mark McClellan and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research acting director Steven Galson appeared to be introducing a different standard for evaluating Plan B than the FDA had applied to other contraceptives.
"The agency has not (previously) distinguished the safety and efficacy of Plan B and other forms of hormonal contraception among different ages of women of childbearing potential, and I am not aware of any compelling scientific reason for such a distinction in this case," wrote John Jenkins, director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs, which oversees all drug reviews for the agency.
When Galson announced the surprise rejection of Plan B on May 6, he acknowledged that the FDA staff disagreed. But there was no further explanation; the internal documents offer the first look at the depth and breadth of the disagreement.
FDA spokesman Lawrence Bachorik said the agency "will not comment on internal deliberative documents that were part of our decision-making process."
The decision last month set off intense criticism from legislators and advocates, many of whom accused the FDA of succumbing to political pressure from social conservatives who oppose making the emergency contraceptive more accessible. In January, 49 conservative members of Congress wrote to President Bush asking that the application be rejected, in large part because of concerns over possible use by teenagers.
The ensuing criticism of the FDA, which has been leveled by Democrats and some Republicans, led this week to a formal request by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., for a Senate hearing and a General Accounting Office inquiry into the decision. In her letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., requesting a hearing, Clinton wrote that reports of "irregularities" in FDA decision-making required an oversight hearing.
The letter was signed by 23 other senators, including presumed Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
When the FDA rejected the application from Barr Laboratories Inc. to make Plan B an over-the-counter drug, Galson, a physician and civil servant, said he made the decision based on scientific concerns and not political pressure.
In an internal memo, Galson acknowledged that "some staff have expressed the concern that this decision is based on nonmedical implications of teenage sexual behavior, or judgments about the propriety of this activity." He called the staff's concerns unfounded.
While the FDA documents are written in bureaucratic and sometimes technical language, they reflect a level of frustration among some of the reviewers and their managers. For instance, Jonca Bull, head of the office that oversees decisions to make drugs available without prescription, referred to some of the issues raised against immediate Plan B approval as "speculative and unbalanced."
Addressing the contention that easy availability of Plan B might result in decreased condom use and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, Bull wrote that, "again, the logic is flawed and speculative."
The differences between Galson's conclusions in rejecting the applications and his staff's assessments are often stark. According to Office of New Drugs chief Jenkins, the data submitted are "fully consistent with the agency's usual standards for meeting the criteria" for a switch to over-the- counter, or nonprescription, status. He said all the reviewers agreed, as did an advisory panel, which voted 23-4 for approval in December.
The staff reviewers concluded that studies indicated that teenagers would not change their sexual behavior if Plan B became available on open drugstore shelves, that there would be no additional risk of sexually transmitted diseases and that there was no basis for deeming Plan B any less safe or effective for teenagers than for older women.
In addition, Bull said, the FDA had approved numerous contraceptives for nonprescription use, setting a precedent for the proposed Plan B switch.
Galson, however, ruled that there was insufficient information on how adolescents, especially sexually active 11- to 14-year-old girls, might behave. Information about mid-adolescents cannot be used to extrapolate how younger girls would act, he said, and there was insufficient information that young teenagers would use the product correctly.
Galson did not respond to the precedents cited by Bull that made some other contraceptive products available over-the-counter.
"Health care and insurance costs will plummet if excess regulation is eliminated and malpractice awards are made only on the basis of strict liability. Lower costs, along with the savings from downsizing regulatory bureaucracy, will fund tax credits for those who establish Health Savings Accounts for themselves, their families, Medicare/Medicaid recipients, and the needy."
Health care costs are soaring. Health insurance premiums reflect these increases, making coverage unaffordable, for both individuals and businesses. If these trends continue, few people will have access to state-of-the art health care.
Establishment politicians don't have a solution to the health care crisis. They simply propose a variety of cost-shifting measures which are doomed to fail. As the "baby boomers" age, their medical needs will dwarf the capacity of the next generation to pay for them. Health care rationing will be the inevitable result, as Canada, Britain, and other nations that have turned to tax-supported "universal care" are discovering. While these nations are turning toward market-based reforms to save themselves, our politicians seemed determined to repeat their mistakes.
Establishment politicians can't solve the health care crisis because they aren't asking the tough question: "Why are health care costs so high in the first place? What can be done to lower them without causing rationing or the loss of life-saving innovations? How can we make health care universally affordable?"
Costs are high because of the excessive regulation in virtually every aspect of health care. In the companion paper "How to Slash Pharmaceutical Prices Virtually Overnight," I explain how excess regulation has driven up the cost of new drugs. As a consequence, less than half of new pharmaceutical discoveries can be developed.
Fewer new drugs translate into higher health care costs. Even at the inflated prices that new drugs command, every dollar spent to buy them saves about $3 in hospitalizations and lost time. For example, people with ulcers used to pay $28,000 for surgery and were unable to work for weeks. The introduction of Tagametr allowed ulcer patients to stay on the job, while spending only $1,000-$3,000 on medication. One of the easiest ways to lower health care costs is to get rid of excess regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.
In addition, excess regulation drives up the cost of training physicians, who must then raise their fees accordingly. Just as the high cost of pharmaceutical regulation results in fewer medications, the high cost of gaining a medical license means fewer doctors, so patients must often wait weeks for an appointment. The regulations governing medical schools have resulted in homogenized training of physicians, which often neglects cost-saving approaches such as disease prevention, nutrition, and alternative therapies.
Government-mandated red tape increases the paperwork burden for physicians and their staff. Medicare and Medicaid come with an additional layer of busy work for over-extended physicians, with criminal penalties for clerical mistakes. More and more doctors are refusing to treat patients with government "insurance" to avoid the red tape, late payments, and poor compensation that have become a hallmark of these programs.
Courts today often impose malpractice penalties on physicians who have done nothing wrong so that patients can access the "deep pockets" of insurers. The result has been skyrocketing premiums for doctors, driving up prices and causing many practitioners to abandon high-risk specialties such as obstetrics.
Most states mandate what medical insurance must cover, making everyone buy an expensive "one- size-fits-all" policy instead of one tailored to their needs and budget. Consequently, fewer people can afford insurance at all.
If you elect me as your president, I will end excess regulation of pharmaceuticals, health care providers, and insurance companies. Physicians will be held liable for malpractice, but not for problems beyond their control. Health care costs will plummet.
Taxpayers will save as much as they are now spending on Medicare/Medicaid when they no longer have to fund this destructive bureaucracy. Tax credits can then be extended to any person or organization funding Health Savings Accounts for themselves or others. With such tax incentives to aid in charitable gifting, Medicare or Medicaid recipients can transition into their choice of private health insurance, allowing rapid privatization of these programs.
With such reforms, health care costs will be almost universally affordable. Generous tax credits, made possible by downsizing the regulatory bureaucracy, will spur charitable donors to take care of the medically needy.
I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions---to give you answers that really work!
"Marriage partners, not government, should define the terms and spiritual orientation of their union in accordance with our nation's guarantee of religious freedom."
Should gay marriage be permitted? Is such marriage a basic human right or an abomination that should never be sanctioned?
Establishment politicians are divided, much as their constituents are. No matter what laws they enact or fail to enact, the division will remain and the fighting will continue. Are we doomed to be a house divided?
Establishment politicians can't solve this real world problem because they aren't asking the tough question: "Should lovers jointly decide what their marriage will be or should government dictate the terms of their most intimate union?"
Today, of course, government decides if a couple is even permitted to marry through a licensing process. In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as it can be denied to gay couples today.
When government permission is granted, the marriage constitutes a legal, binding contract, with terms that vary over time and with the location of residence. Since these terms are not written down, but are simply a matter of case law and creative legal tactics, a couple rarely finds out what they are until faced with a divorce. Men discover that their claim to custody can be prejudiced simply by their sex. Women find that that their worth as a homemaker varies from state to state. Prenuptial agreements are honored by some courts and heavily discounted by others. The couples find themselves bound, not by what they themselves have agreed upon, but by what government officials dictate.
Like every partnership, marriage should fit the individuals it unites, rather than be a "one-size-fits all" proposition defined by those outside the relationship. Each marriage should be what the partners want it to be—no more, no less. Ideally, the terms of marriage should be defined ahead of time with procedures to modify them as necessary.
Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role in marriage should be the same.
When marriage is taken out of the legal realm, it is seen for what it has always been: a matter of heart and soul. Just as the Catholic Church has historically disdained divorce among its congregation, so too will some religious groups refuse to bless gay unions. Both those who support and those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and persuade others to their way of thinking. Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?
We know how to live and let live. Our nation was founded—and prospered—on that principle. Religious tolerance, the real issue in gay marriage, allows us to live peacefully even though our beliefs may radically differ.
Freedom is the one thing we cannot have unless we give it to others. The blessings our nation enjoys today is built upon that expression of free will. If you elect me as your president, marriage will no longer be a political football, but a matter for hearts and souls.
I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions—to give you answers that really work!
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over 150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and the able-bodied poor."
Have you lost your job to downsizing or corporate mergers? Are you fearful that you might? If so, you won't want to vote for the Democrats or Republicans this November.
Establishment politicians think that larger, more elaborate government jobs programs are the solution to your problems. However, since these programs must be funded by taking money from the private sector, even more jobs are destroyed---more jobs than the government programs can ever create.
Establishment politicians dont have solutions that work in the real world because they aren't asking the tough question: "Why are jobs becoming scarce? Why do we have so much downsizing and so many corporate mergers?"
The answer is too much regulation and too much government spending. In the 1980s, the number of federal regulators fell from about 122,000 to barely 100,000. The private sector added 3,500,000 jobs as a consequence. The loss of each federal regulator resulted in the creation of more than 150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, most of the unemployed, and some of the able-bodied poor. The nation prospered!
Between 1987 to 1992, the number of regulators swelled once more to pre-1980 levels. The 3.5 million newly-created jobs were destroyed as a result. The number of regulators has continued to increase, costing additional jobs as well. Was your job among them? Will you be unemployed when the next wave of government regulation hits?
More government regulation and spending translate to more unemployment and less wealth creation. Less wealth creation means fewer goods and services, less health care, higher prices. The resulting lower standard of living means that people die needlessly. One study estimated that the death toll from regulations that do more harm than good cost 60,000 American lives each year! Will your loved ones be among them?
Even when government spends for a good cause, society becomes poorer. Consequently, the Swedish government, which established elaborate social safety nets in the 1970s, can now barely create enough wealth to sustain itself. America will end up in the same situation if we continue to grow government.
We know how jobs are destroyed: too much regulation and too much government spending. We know how to reverse the process; we've done it before. If you elect me as your president, I promise to downsize government instead of your job!
I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions---to give you answers that really work!
Libertarian candidate drops out to join Showtime's 'American Candidate'
Libertarian candidate drops out to join Showtime's 'American Candidate'
Richard Mack, a two-time elected sheriff in Arizona who has been running for governor of Utah on the Libertarian ticket, has announced he is dropping out of the gubernatorial race to run for president -- on cable channel Showtime's new summer series, "American Candidate."
Mack, 51, has been selected as one of the 12 finalists for the show, out of approximately 1,500 hopefuls from across the nation who signed up via the show's Web site.
One rule of the show is that no one who is currently in an actual political race can take part in the televised "race." Calling the Showtime program a great opportunity, Mack said it would be foolish to turn down the chance at national airtime and a $200,000 prize, so he withdrew from the governor's race.
Showtime has not released a list of the 12 finalists, but on June 7 he was delivered a briefcase with instructions to stage a political rally, spending up to $100.
Like other reality TV shows, the contestants must go through various challenges; the rally was the first challenge; the candidate who draws the fewest supporters will lose the stage and be dropped from the race. The show is slated to premiere in August. After 10 weeks, the weekly popular votes, polling samples and program judges will select a candidate from the two remaining contestants.
Once the "campaign" is over, the candidate who wins will have the opportunity to make an actual run for president -- probably as a write-in candidate -- but that decision is up to the individual.
Mack intends to run on a Libertarian platform, as he had been doing in the governor's race: Reduce the size and scope of government, reduce debt, legalize marijuana, abolish the IRS and "reclaim the freedom to run our own lives."
And better yet, he'll have the chance to preach that message on national television.
Not only will this allow him to spread the cause to a larger audience in the immediate future as "American Candidate" airs, but he "will also be able to return as a stronger candidate in the future," said Rob Latham, who was Mack's campaign manager in the governor's race.
Medical Marijuana and the Federal War on Drugs: Badnarik's view
In the 2000 campaign for president, George W. Bush said that the federal government should not interfere with the medical marijuana policies of the several states. Like so many other promises, he went back on his word and has closed down medical marijuana facilities permitted by state governments.
This is an outrage. The federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere with state drug policies. When the federal government outlawed alcohol, it required a constitutional amendment to do so. None the less it has assumed the legal authority to wage its "War on Drugs."
According to nearly every scientific study on the subject, including ones conducted by the government, medical marijuana provides unique relief to patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other illnesses, and the drug does not have the same addictive properties as alcohol.
The federally approved Marinol contains the psychoactive THC but lacks other cannabinoids crucial to marijuana as an effective medicine. This is one of the many insanities of federal drug policy, which categorizes a plant that has never been shown to kill anyone as more illegal than cocaine, and certainly more illegal than alcohol.
Though smoking marijuana—just as smoking tobacco—can cause harm to the lungs and respiratory system, the drug can also be ingested and vaporized so as to prevent such unwanted side effects.
On a fundamental level, Libertarians believe that it is the unalienable and constitutional right of individuals to medicate themselves and choose for themselves what to put into their bodies, as long as they live up to the consequences of their actions. The federal government has no proper say in the matter, and state governments violate the rights of the people in their own attempts to enforce morality. The decision to ingest, smoke or consume any drug should be up to the individual, under the advice of his or her physician, when appropriate. Locking people up for trying to relieve their pain is cruel and unusual punishment for an act that hurts no one.
The Drug War has led to some of the worst violations of the constitutional liberties of Americans, as well as to the worst wave of violent crime in American history since Alcohol Prohibition. It has been used to rationalize unlawful searches and seizures, corruption of the court system, no-knock raids, racial profiling, and "civil asset forfeiture"—a policy whereby government officials can confiscate private property without even charging anyone with a crime. The War on Drugs, more than anything else, has served as a means of destroying the Bill of Rights. It has also led to excessive taxes and spending, costing more than 40 billion dollars a year to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent drug offenders.
Drug Prohibition has caused gang warfare and other violent crime by raising the prices of drugs so much that vicious criminals enter the market to make astronomical profits, and addicts rob and steal to get money to pay the inflated prices for their drugs. On average, drug prisoners spend more time in federal prison than rapists, who often get out on early release because of the over-crowding in prison caused by the Drug War. While violent criminals can usually have their sentences reduced, drug offenders are subject to "mandatory minimums," which strip away judicial discretion and force judges to put users and dealers in prison for decades. This has to stop.
The Drug War also has funded terrorists; providing them with opportunities for enormous profits, and even by giving foreign aid to such regimes as the Taliban as long as they promised to have "tough drug" policies.
The Drug War does not curb demand, it barely reduces supply, however it makes America much more dangerous and much less free.
A Libertarian president would order federal officials to cease and desist in harassing medical marijuana patients and would block federal spending on the War on Drugs. Nonviolent drug offenders would be released from federal prison, and each state would choose its own drug policy, just as each chose its own alcohol policy when alcohol Prohibition was repealed. Libertarians would hope and expect most states to come around and severely reform their policies to make them more humane and less at odds with the Constitution and the American way of life.
Bush dumped by Republican Liberty Caucus: now voting for Badnarik
I recognize a few names in the membership, so hopefully seeing me here will be no surprise.
I am a Republican (a libertarian Republican) who is tired of the Bush Administration. I was disappointed that neither of the two big name Libertarians won the LP nomination. I know nothing of Michael Badnarik - but will still almost assuredly vote for him in November.
So take heart, those of you who were Russo or Nolan supporters. The Libertarian candidate will be the protest vote in this election. Get behind Badnarik – he is not Bush nor is he Kerry, which is a good thing.
I know some of you will be tempted to attack me for being a registered Republican. For those of you who do not know of me, I was relatively high up in the Reform Party hierarchy during its heyday. I dabbled with the Libertarian Party after the Buchanan debacle.
I concluded that third party activism is no better than voting for the lesser of two evils – you are still voting for evil. When there are only two parties who have a stranglehold on participation in politics, refusing to participate with one of the two of them is still refusal to participate – which is why I am a libertarian Republican instead of a Libertarian.
Those of you into party titles, or platform planks – just ignore me. I know that the third party IS the reason for participation. For those of you who simply grew tired of always fighting the authoritarian Republicans – check out the Republican Liberty Caucus – www.rlc.com. We are a 527c organization. We WILL NOT be officially endorsing the Republican nominee for President. While we cannot endorse an opposition candidate, we can openly state that we will vote for the "opposition" which is Michael Badnarik in this case.
We are small "l" libertarians – pragmatic in some cases. I've even been called a founder of the neo-libertarian movement within the Republican Party. However you want to define `us' we are a group of Republicans with whom you will find much in common.
Ray Holtorf www.Holtorf.com/Ray
PurePolitics.com Interview: Michael Badnarik (L) for President of the United States of America
Michael Badnarik (L) for President of the United States of America
By: Paige Rohe
1. In your opinion, could you describe what it means to be a libertarian?
The Libertarian philosophy is based on individual rights and personal responsibility. Rights are responsibilities are different aspects of the same concept, much like opposite sides of the same coin. My right to keep and bear arms requires that I assume the responsibility of not injuring anyone with my firearm. Being Libertarian also means adhering to the non-aggression principle in our everyday lives. Libertarians do not tolerate the initiation of force, however we do support the use of force in self defense. Libertarians strive to be an example to those around us, and we actively oppose the initiation of force by others, helping to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. Protecting the rights of others is a necessary step towards ensuring our own.
2. You have declared state-funded public school systems to be unconstitutional. How is this possible and what plans do you have for improving education for America's children?
The Department of Education is unconstitutional simply because there is no explicit reference to education in the Constitution. Furthermore, the First Amendment protects our freedom of expression which implies a diversity of ideas. When the state or federal government controls the education of all of our children, they have the dangerous and illegitimate monopoly to control and influence the thought process of our citizens. The Department of Health Education and Welfare was created in 1953 at a time when American students placed number one in math and science worldwide. Now, after fifty years of government control of schools, we spend ten times as much per student, and American students now finish twenty-first in math and science compared to other countries. Even if the Department of Education was Constitutional (which it is not), the department should be eliminated due to incompetence.
My plans for improving America's education system would be to privatize the entire system, eliminating government control at any level. Property taxes would no longer be used to fund the education of others. Each school would operate as an independent business, and parents would be allowed to send their children to any school they choose. Parents would naturally send their children to the best school they could afford, making those schools very profitable and successful. Bad schools would be forced to improve or they would go out of business because they were unable to operate at a profit. Equally important is the fact that competition between schools would make education more affordable, allowing children from poorer families to have a better chance of improving their lives.
I would also provide incentives for parents to home school whenever possible, not only raising academic standards, but strengthening the bonds that hold families together. The top three children in the last national spelling bee were home schooled, as were the first place winner in the last four competitions. Home schooled children clearly have an advantage over kids who are subjected to public school. As the first true "education president", I would offer to be a guest teacher (for no cost) at schools all across the nation. Children would realize that it's "cool" to be smart.
3. The legalization of marijuana and other drugs, you suggest, would actually help make streets safer. As President, how would you convince more conservative Americans that such substances are not a harmful element to society?
It is my personal opinion (supported by volumes of scientific data) that cigarettes are harmful to your health, however it is not my responsibility to impose that opinion on those who choose to smoke. It is also my opinion that drugs are harmful to your health, however the government has no authority to impose the will of the majority on individuals who choose to use drugs. People have a right to smoke or ingest anything they choose, however they also assume the responsibility for their actions. If they injure themselves, they alone are responsible. If they injure someone else while under the influence of drugs, then society should hold them accountable, the same way we would hold someone accountable if they were not using drugs.
Most people fail to realize that the war on drugs actually increases the use of drugs in this country - exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do. It does this by creating a lucrative black market that generates huge profits for very little effort. In order to reduce the use of drugs, we have to reduce their availability. In order to reduce their availability we have to make drugs less profitable. Legalizing (or "decriminalizing") drugs would remove the huge profit incentive for smuggling drugs, and the availability of drugs would decrease by many factors of ten.
Libertarians are not in favor of drug use, however we are adamantly opposed to the abuse of government power and the flagrant violation of individual rights that results from the war on drugs. A fundamental principle of the Constitution is the protection of private property. The drug war as created a policy known as "asset forfeiture", meaning that government agencies can confiscate property merely suspected of being involved in a drug crime. Those agencies can then sell that property at ten percent of its market value, keeping the money as revenue. This policy promotes government corruption by making it profitable to confiscate property without an indictment. Libertarians therefore believe that the war against drugs causes more damage than the drugs themselves.
4. One of the issues of which you are most passionate is gun control. You have suggested that it is unconstitutional, and was the sole reason why you moved from California. As President, how would you convince states with strong gun control laws, like California, to remove such legislation from the books?
(Note: Gun control was my primary reason for leaving California, but not the only reason.) In the Marbury .vs. Madison decision of 1805, the Supreme Court announced that "any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void". Therefore 20,000+ gun laws in this country are "repugnant to the Constitution" because they pretend to place limitations on a person's right to defend themselves. At the same time that police agencies deprive us of the right to defend ourselves, they simultaneously insist that they are not capable of, and have no responsibility to, protect us. If these two assumptions are true, then individuals are legally required to remain innocent victims - thus negating the very purpose of any organized government.
My first step would be to write an executive order to all federal police agencies (eg. ATF) announcing that the violation of anyone's Second Amendment rights would result in termination of their position followed by prosecution of the offense. I would extend this threat as far as permissible to state agencies, as well. I would explain that while citizens have a right to life, they also have a personal responsibility to protect that life by whatever means they feel is appropriate. I would wear and display my own handgun during every State of the Union address, demonstrating that gun ownership does not imply criminal activity. Rights cannot be granted by the government. The government cannot limit the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can limit a person's right to exercise their religion.
5. Of the following international issues, which one do you think has not received enough attention and what would you do if elected to address it: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, HIV/AIDS in Africa, SARS, or international terrorism?
International terrorism has probably received the most attention, however most of that attention has been misleading propaganda. Since the Libertarian philosophy advocates non-aggression on an individual level, it necessarily advocates non-aggression at a national level as well. Therefore, I would put an end to decades of imperialistic empire building and interference in the affairs of other countries. That is precisely what has led us into a situation where most foreign governments feel threatened by, or are openly hostile to, the United States. The solution to the problem is to follow the advice that George Washington expressed in his farewell address, which was to establish economic ties with all nations, and "entangling alliances" with none. I would publicly apologize to the rest of the world for our interference in their lives, and I would begin a rapid recall of our troops from around the world. Other countries will be less likely to attack us when we are trading goods that are necessary for their survival. The United States would show no favoritism to any country, including Israel. Private citizens would be free to donate as much money to these causes as they want, but any taxes collected by the United States would be spent here. The billions (or trillions) of dollars spent on foreign aid would come to a halt. This will undoubtedly create some negative press from those countries that have become dependent on the generosity of Congress, however these complaints are completely unjustified and would only be temporary, anyway.
6. In order to give the readers of PurePolitics.com a more intimate view of the candidates running in the 2004 Presidential election, we like to ask one question whose subject matter is irrelevant to the platform issues. Michael Badnarik, what is your favorite flavor of ice cream?
If I had to pick only one, it would be Ben and Jerry's "Chunky Monkey" ice cream. I love the banana ice cream filled with huge chunks of chocolate and walnuts. However, I like several other flavors, too, which reflects my multi-faceted personality. I think one of the greatest characteristics of the Americans - as evidenced by the wide range of market choices we have - is our diversity and willingness to try new things. It just wouldn't be America if we only had one choice of peanut butter. (Why, then, do we settle for one choice when it comes to government schools?)
The Badnarik Campaign P.O. Box 841 Buda, Texas [Postal Zone 78610]
Website: www.Badnarik.org
Campaign Email Address:
Michael Badnarik badnarik@badnarik.org
How to Slash Pharmaceutical Prices Virtually Overnight
How to Slash Pharmaceutical Prices Virtually Overnight
"Excess regulation has increased new drug development time by a decade since the 1960s and multiplied development costs 5-fold. Consequently, our seriously ill die waiting for life-saving medicines and pay exorbitant prices when they finally can purchase them. Since these excess regulations kill many more people than they save, they can be safely eliminated, slashing pharmaceutical prices virtually overnight!"
The average brand name prescription drug cost American consumers over $84 in 2003, making life-saving medications unaffordable for those on low or fixed incomes.
Establishment politicians want to shift these costs to taxpayers or pharmaceutical firms. Making taxpayers foot the bill will only spread the impoverishment. Cutting pharmaceutical profits to make drug companies foot the bill will stifle innovation. We'll be forced to watch our loved ones die in agony, unable to purchase a cure at any price.
These so-called solutions don't work in the real world because establishment politicians haven't answered the tough question: Why have drug prices risen so steeply in the past several decades?
The answer is excessive FDA regulation. In 1962, Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Amendments, in the wake of the European thalidomide tragedy. This sweeping legislation meant that pharmaceutical firms had to go through more elaborate animal and human studies. New regulations made manufacturing more costly. Advertising had to undergo an approval process by the FDA.
The American consumer reaped small safety benefits from these added regulations, but the cost, both in lives and money, was even greater. Millions have died waiting for life-saving drugs because development times have increased by an average of 10 years since the 1960s. The cost of developing a new drug is now about $1 billion. Somewhere around 80% of this cost is due to excess regulations.
The Kefauver-Harris Amendments even created an American thalidomide which caused more birth defects than thalidomide did. Since the 1980s, we've known that the B vitamin, folic acid, could prevent about 85% of spina bifida and other neural tube abnormalities if taken in the first couple months of pregnancy. Until the late 1990s, the regulatory power of the Amendments was used by the FDA to stop vitamin manufacturers from advertising folic acid's benefits. Young women could have protected their unborn children with this safe, inexpensive supplement. Instead, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of American infants have been needlessly born with heart-wrenching deformities. Many more were aborted when pre-natal tests revealed these defects.
We could slash pharmaceutical prices overnight by ending these regulations. We could save people who now die waiting an extra decade for life-saving drugs. We could save our children from a future American thalidomide.
Why should we pay high pharmaceutical prices for regulations that harm us? If you elect me as your President, I promise to lower the high cost of prescription medication by eliminating the problem at its root.
I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions---to give you answers that really work!
www.Badnarik.org
Web Animation- tax policies- Bush, Kerry, Nader & Badnarik
Attorney running as Libertarian's VP nominee For those who complain about Iowa City being "too liberal," here's a little twist: An Iowa City man is the Libertarian's candidate for vice president of the United States.
Attorney Richard Campagna, 51, accepted the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination at the Libertarian Party National Convention in Atlanta on Sunday. Campagna's running mate is Michael Badnarik, a 49-year-old computer programmer from Austin, Texas.
Their ascendancy to the top position marked a convention struggle that news networks these days can only wish for when covering the Democrats' and Republicans' well-orchestrated events. As the convention began, Badnarik trailed two other candidates, both of whom had more money and experience before audiences. But Badnarik impressed delegates during Saturday's debate, and during the convention's first ballot Sunday, moved into second place, a mere two votes behind frontrunner and Hollywood producer Aaron Russo.
When a second ballot showed Russo and Badnarik again in first and second, the other candidate pulled out of the race. On the third ballot, Badnarik took the lead and the nomination. Campagna accepted the vice presidential nomination later that day.
An instructor at Kirkwood Community College, St. Ambrose University and Mt. Mercy College, Campagna runs a consulting practice. He has a bachelor's from Brown University, master's from New York University and Columbia University, his J.D. from St. John's University and a doctorate's from the American College of Metaphysical Theology. A Campagna campaign quote: "In education, law and life, the 'existential' and 'libertarian' approaches are most consistent with the human condition. Isn't it about time we introduced these philosophies and approaches into our daily existence and our government?"
Those giving the Badnarik-Campagna platform a cursory look will say it sounds like standard Republican: Limited government, low taxes and pro-gun rights. But their criticism of the Bush administration's fiscal policies and opposition to the occupation of Iraq sound like an awful lot like the Democrats.
Indeed, the Libertarian platform strikes against the labels that so many pundits and spinmeisters these days heap upon people and their political views.
Mike Badnarik Quotes- gay marriage, free trade, etc.
From: badnarik2004@yahoogroups.com Some quotes from Mike on various issues, mostly taken from the convention debate. Folks might find them useful.
Free trade:
"NAFTA and GATT have about as much to do with free trade as the Patriot Act has to do with liberty."
Marriage:
"If you have a marriage license, what do you have permission to do now that you did not have permission to do before? Who gave you that permission, and where did they get the authority to give you that permission in the first place?"
Censorship:
"I find it very offensive when the government tells me what I can and cannot watch. [...] Censor yourself."
Military Draft:
"Imagine! People are not volunteering to go to foreign countries and die the way they used to! Imagine that!"
Health Care:
"Congress doesn’t seem to know anything about the constitution, which is their job. How much less do they know about medicine? "
Foreign Aid:
"People within the United States are free to do anything they want with their personal funds, but it is immoral to tax Arabs and send that Israel, or to tax the Jews and to send that to the Arabs."
Energy:
"All you need to know about economics is the law of supply and demand. When the supply of something goes down, the price of it will go up. And as the price of gasoline goes up, the consumer at the pump is going to provide the incentive for finding alternative sources."
Education:
"When the state or federal government controls the education of all of our children, they have the dangerous and illegitimate monopoly to control and influence the thought process of our citizens."
Voting for a third party:
"If you were in prison and you had a 50% choice of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome? If you continue to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are committing political suicide."
Michael Badnarik: The LP Picks a Winner by L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.com
Publisher, The Libertarian Enterprise
It gives me more pleasure than I can possibly express to be able to announce—to the three or four cave-dwellers who haven't heard the news yet —that the Libertarian Party's nomination for President was won on the third ballot this past Sunday, May 30, 2004 by Michael Badnarik.
So thoroughly out of step have I become, not only with the culture I grew up in, but with the political party of my own choosing, that it's a rare luxury for me to see an individual I was among the first to recognize as worthy and endorse, actually win. So I am happy for myself, as well as for Mike (who richly deserves the honor) and for an LP, that, at this desperate and crucial moment in its own history, as well as that of America and the world, sorely needs a nominee of this quality.
I need to say a word, here, about Aaron Russo and his trusty right hand, Stephen "Flash" Gordon. I have greatly enjoyed my association with these classy gentlemen, and hope that it continues. It was Aaron, with his high principle and enthusiasm for the fight with tyranny, who made this a race worth running. If he will stay, now, within the party and the movement, I will be honored to back his play and Steve's, as well.
Our thanks and appreciation to Gary Nolan, too.
The simple truth is that the freedom movement needs every single individual of intelligence, competence, and integrity that it can find right now. The LP is the last hope that the America we remember has left.
All of us must begin telling everyone we know—especially if they're not libertarians—that if they're fed up with this mess the Republicans have made in Iraq and Afghanistan, if they want to see the USA Patriot Act go down in flames, along with all the unconstitutional intrusions and limitations that it has inflicted on us, if they want to see drug laws, the income tax, and federal gun laws repealed, and if they don't believe life under a Kerry Administration would be any better than it has been under Bush, their only option is to see both "major" parties shocked and embarrassed by a high turnout for Michael Badnarik.
Any way you slice it, November will be a turning-point in history. We can frighten and humble the other two parties (all it would take is 10% of the vote) or let them be emboldened to do even worse than they have.
Congratulations again, Mike, and condolences, as well. The road ahead of you is long, hard, twisted, and uphill all the way. And yet it is the road that must be taken if the torch of liberty is to be relit. Count on this journal, and this journalist, to help you all we can.
Three-time Prometheus Award-winner L. Neil Smith is the author of 23 books, including The American Zone, Forge of the Elders, Pallas, The Probability Broach, Hope (with Aaron Zelman), and his collection of articles and speeches, Lever Action, all of which may be purchased through his website "The Webley Page" at www.lneilsmith.com. Autographed copies may be had from the author at lneil@lneilsmith.com.
Neil is presently at work on Ceres and Ares, two sequels to his 1993 novel, Pallas, a decensored and electronically published version of his 1984 novel, Tom Paine Maru, and on Roswell, Texas, with Rex F. "Baloo" May. A 180-page full-color graphic novel version of The Probability Broach will be released this summer.
1. Add the following to your email signature line:
"Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!" Badnarik for President http://www.badnarik.org" title="http://www.badnarik.org" target="_blank"http://www.badnarik.org
