Talk:Michael Badnarik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good to be King[edit]

The statement that he asserted in the book that "anyone with an "Esquire" after their name, such as lawyers and attorneys, are forbidden from holding public office" was removed because it is misleading. In the book, as in his class, he argues that there are in fact three thirteen amendments, one of which was that anyone with a title appended to their name, such as esquire, md, etc, could not hold office.

Election results[edit]

I'd like to put in the election results but I have qualms about editing a protected page. Maybe we can agree on a neutral passage here and get another admin to insert it. For now, let's stick it in the intro paragraph: "Badnarik received 371,820 votes, 0.32% of the popular vote. He did not win any states' electoral votes."

As for questions about my editing this page, I changed the tense of two verbs. This page is protected due to the actions of two specific people, and my opinion is that the rest of us should be free to edit it. Rhobite 20:26, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree considering that number is about 6000 off and that's even without all the totals in yet. 1 percent of precints are still left to report(one percent would be another 3000 votes) plus provisonal/absentee ballots. Aka you can't add in the amount he got untill we have federal certified election results, untill then it's according to [blank media] Badnarik so far has recived (number) amount of votes. Chuck F 20:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a better source? I'm going off of the info you added to the election in progress page. 3rd party tallies are hard to find on the web. Also, we can always change the number, and it's unreasonable to insist that we add no total until the very final results are in. Rhobite 20:40, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've been getting my results all night long from USAtoday which right now has him at 377,197. with 99 precincts reporting. I'm not saying we should have no data, but we need to source it as being so far he's recived with 99 percent reporting according to blank media. Chuck F 20:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more with Chuck_F. Why Rhobite feels the need to misuse his Administrator powers to change a highly contentious protected article to suit his own requirements can only be speculated about. Chuck is right, the final results are yet to be certified and Badnarik's poor showing can be displayed then. I would welcome an administrator with a better reputation to make the change, if one is deemed necessary by consensus here. So far the consensus is against any change until the results are certified. Reithy 20:47, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

How's this? "According to USA Today, as of 3:52 PM on November 3, Badnarik received 377,199 votes, or 0.33% of the popular vote. He did not win any states' electoral votes. [1]" Rhobite 20:56, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

"According to USA Today, as of 3:52 p.m. November 3rd, with 99% precincts reporting, Badnarik received 377,199 votes, or 0.33% of the popular vote. He did not win any states' electoral votes. [2]" is better Chuck F 21:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Let's ask someone on the pump to add it. Rhobite 21:03, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
I am happy with the change as long as the administrator under a cloud does not make the change, he is unfit to do so. Reithy 21:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Asked on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Rhobite 21:09, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article even still protected? the edit war was about polling data before the election, it's kinda a moot point right now. I can't imagine us starting up an edit war about that again.(although I'm sure we'll find something else) Chuck F 06:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite's continuing abuse of power[edit]

Rhobite has said as a Libertarian he avoids editing Libertarian articles.

Now he is proposing to edit the article even though it is protected. I actually don't disagree with the change but in the circumstances Rhobite should not only get over himself he should start to act with propriety and probity. Reithy 20:31, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

It is protected due to repeated vandalism by you. And I am not proposing that I edit it myself, I did fix the tense of two verbs but I don't want to add the passage. If you have an objection to the passage, let me know, otherwise we should ask a disinterested admin to add it. Rhobite 20:35, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
You throw terms of abuse around rather freely don't you? Now I'm a vandal, something not even Chuck accuses me of. No evidence of course because there isn't any. I agree a disinterested admin should make the change, I object to you changing articles where you have an admitted bias, where they are highly contentious, where they are protected. This is a continuation of your conduct as Administrator which I regard as contrary to Wikipedia principles. Let someone else make the changes, someone we can have faith in. Reithy 20:41, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Of course he called you a vandal. Rhobite 20:44, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Remember that guideline about assume good faith. Does that one not apply to you? Didn't remove that comment, your latest personal attack should be displayed as it proves me point about how unfit you are to serve as an Administrator. Chuck is a simple soul with a clear and stated agenda, an intellectually honest young man. You can only aspire to that. Reithy 20:59, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Chuck called you a vandal multiple times in your RFAr, and you certainly did remove my comment from this page. Rhobite 21:12, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Clearly unintended, due to edit conflict, trust me on this, I want every word of your personal attacks fully displayed, they prove my point, you are unfit to serve as an administrator, you seek to impose standards you will not comply with. You seek to edit articles that are highly contentious that have been protected. You threaten to block those that disagree with you. I don't see that Chuck called me a vandal here, you did. Your evidence? Nil. Your status as an administrator grows more tarnished. I feel your pain. Reithy 21:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Propriety of Editing Protected Pages in which the Admin has a Strong Personal Interest[edit]

Newly appointed admin, Rhobite has declared that he avoids editing Libertarian articles because he is a libertarian although not a party member. A wise approach some might think. In theory, yes. In practice, he edits articles, even highly contentious ones about Oval Office aspirant Michael Badnarek when they are PROTECTED. This seems highly likely to antagonize those who disagree with his views. I had no problem with what he was proposing to add, but to do so when others who disagreed, like Chuck_F, seemed highly unfair, highly improper and a complete abuse of his administrator's powers. Is there a process for removing or suspending an admin while they receive counselling? Reithy 12:19, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

You are correct in that admins should basically never edit an article when it is protected, even to correct grammar mistakes or other minor things. However, I am pretty sure it was in good faith, and it is really a very minor thing to argue about... — David Remahl 13:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We are speaking of minor edits, yes. But why an admin, a person with special privileges, would weigh into a protected and highly contentious article, make several changes and propose major changes does genuinely puzzle me. Particularly in circumstances where he had pledged not to edit the article at all. How are admin's held to account for their conduct? Does someone review them? Reithy 22:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


Now that the election is over, perhaps you can agree on what to write about the candidate's popularity... Page unprotected. — David Remahl 18:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

npov edits[edit]

Hey how and where can we add in the fact that he managed to with being on the ballot in two less states and spending 1.4 millon less(200 percent) then Harry browne, he managed to beat his vote total?

re: your edit summary "encylopedia's are meant to build people up and show why they are important.. not knock them down in the first pargraph as why they don't matter", I think this may be a fundamental misunderstanding you have about Wikipedia's purpose. And your insistence on removal and reversion as the only solution to article problems is why our mediation failed. WP is not meant to build anyone up, it's mean to present facts objectively. Whether this inspires a negative or positive impression is up to the reader. I don't think the intro sentence is ideal, but due to your edit warring it is very difficult to make positive changes to this article. Rhobite 16:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Image caption[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Captions, Reithy. Among the guidelines: a caption "establishes the picture's relevance to the article," and "provides context for the picture." Saying that Badnarik threatened to bulldoze the UN fulfills neither of these guidelines, while the previous caption fulfills both. Stop it. Rhobite 21:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Please understand the role of Talk pages, they are not for you to issue edicts about what will happen. The caption gives context to the photograph and is interesting in that Badnarik has some controversial views which are probably the only interesting thing about him. The revised caption explains what he said and where he said it. I don't see the problem with it. Reithy 21:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Given that he didn't even say the UN thing in his acceptance speech, I'd say that caption is pretty irrelevant. Rhobite 00:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

saved article enhancement: Economic stimulus: Badnarik says he would stimulate the economy by eliminating the federal income tax in concert with drastically cutting government spending, increasing personal income for most Americans, especially the wealthy. He also advocates the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the restoration of a commodity-based currency. As a so-called minor party candidate, he is seldom asked for detailed justification of this sweeping, populist sounding proposal, which by contrast surely a major party candidate would have to explain and justify in great detail. It is also not often countered by a critical response from the press or his opponents. Among academic economists specializing in the issue of monetary economics, many would quickly note that the current monetary system was in fact fashioned to replace a commodity (gold) influenced system that was antiquated; and that trends in mining activity was an odd choice to power and guide a modern industrial economy. Instead monetary growth is now guided by the rate of economic activity demonstrated by the economy and the capability for further growth shown by the growth of deposits in banks and the resulting capacity to make loans. it is not a strict lock step system but rather one guided by the judgement of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors who try to maintain an orderly growth in the money supply, while intervening to lessen recessions and moderate growth bubbles more successfully in recent years, lead by its chairman Alan Greenspan , than in past. Critics also note that prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System (which can still be criticized for centralizing power in the hands of elites and serving banking and business interests over those of consumer and creditors) the overall banking system was less stable, more diffuse, less efficient, and more prone to corruption. Monetary policy was subject to frequent and severe system crises and there was few effective tools to solve them other than to ride them out. This inability to fix an economy gone off the tracks in the early stages of the country's history later saw rise to the much publicized spectacle of courageous, creative and risky efforts of J.P Morgan and others, who, on behalf of the banking system and in fact the nation, worked to creatively solve them through personal interventions and the persuasion and coordination of the actions of others. These efforts and their degree of success can be said to have pre-saged and eventually lead to a stronger ongoing guiding institution. The Federal Reserve, with long-term appointments, acts independent of direct, immediate political influence to deal with these periodical difficult patches in capitalism but is closely watched by and provides regular testimony to the Congress and President.

response of deletion of recent article enhancement as being "a tangent": i posted some additions to the article that were aimed at a fuller discussion of his views. discussing his advocacy of abolishing the federal reserve is not a inconsequential tangent, it could re-introduce less stability and harm the economy. at least peole should be able to see concern about that. i thought it was useful to provide a counterpoint to a view that is largely unexamined. most articles about poiticians had counterpoints embedded over time for balance and greater information value to the reader; i think libertarian politicians deserve the same treatment. but somebody thinks a position of fundamental change of the foundation of our economy order is a tangent that doesnt deserve fleshing out a bit. i disagree. then i read some of the above discussion of reversions. this place seems far less free and friendly that i originally thought. i'll re-add the points under discussion page for now rather than wasting time on a revert cycle but i ask consideration of some inclusion of the original material by a neutral third party, not the reverter. it ran a little long admittedly but i honestly thought it had value and thought it could be worked on or moved to a new place, not just stripped. does the reverter in returning to the prior imperfect article find any value in re-inserting that the guy is a scuba and skydive instructor? but yet thinks that the candidate wants to completely change the banking system is a tangent that shouldnt have added detail? go figure on what's important! after all this is an primarily on article on him as a prominent candidate and political views not his personal life. the prior article on him reads like a pure political campagin brochure with only his platform planks. that is not how the better candidate articles here read.

Where's the neutrality dispute?[edit]

Seems to be accurate to me now. If anyone doesn't point out specific holes or inaccuracies, I think I'll remove the NPOV header. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad to me. One sentence I found non-neutral:
which implicitly takes the position that others don't. But it's a minor point, not worth the NPOV header. Dbenbenn 10:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think he was joking when he was talking about letting prisoners get atrophy.

Added link to a video of Badnarik's Constitution class[edit]

I added the new hyperlink to's download page for one of Badnarik's recorded constitution classes. I added it here because I think it is a valuable work that not very many people know about. I know this article generates plenty of friction and I hope my changes do not cause anyone strain. Triddle 21:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed neutrality dispute notice.[edit]

As there have been no disputes on this page for several months, I took the liberty of removing the neutrality dispute notice ({{npov}} from the article. If anyone has a problem with this, please state your issues here and reinstate the notice. -- Seth Ilys 19:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questionnaire results[edit]

Badnarik's questionaire results are no longer available at the link in the article: Any objections to deleting this reference out of the article? --Kyle, 8/8/05

I'm going to delete it. Its in my above comment if someone wants to add it back for some reason. -Kyle, 8/15/05

santa pic[edit]

do you folks like my santa pic? Kalmia 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Business Card and ZIP codes[edit]


The scan I made of Michael Badnarik's business card was removed. I think it should remain because it is posted next to the section discussing ZIP codes. That section should be reworded. If he made a comment about ZIP codes, put citation, but it is incorrect to say that he doesn't use them or that he uses them in the way that is mentioned in the article.

If there isn't sufficient objection, I will replace the image. I will give it a few days to be discussed.

Kalmia 23:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Political career[edit]

I took out taxation because to believe in constitutionally limited government you have to believe in some taxation. I unfortunately did not sign in, but I am stating it now. --RG415WBFA

Uncommon Assertions in book[edit]

Some note should be made that at least one of those assertions is verifiably true. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government and is a private business. -23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing on Badnarik's views about taxes[edit]

I added some citation tags in the section on Badnarik's alleged agreement with various tax protester arguments. There are various citations, but they are citations to information about tax protester arguments. There is no citation that shows that Badnarik himself actually agrees with those tax protester arguments. Yours, Famspear 16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing name[edit]

Under the 'Views on taxes' section, there is a line 'He has also cited[17], who has served time in prison for tax evasion.' Whom did he cite? The name has gone missing. (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed that line, because it wasn't at all clear who was being cited, even when looking up the info on the given page number of the book that was cited in the ref.--JayJasper (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Badnarik does not practice minarchism[edit]

No sources identify Michael Badnarik as a minarchist. PublicSquare (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

False - he self identifies as a minarchist here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tax materials[edit]

It appears that the subject of this article espouses (or at least has espoused, in the past) some positions that, if acted upon, can and have landed people in federal prison. It is not at all clear that the subject of the article is actually aware of that, so we need to be careful about what we write here. For example, one of the matters is the William Benson sixteenth amendment nonsense. I added some detail on that. Benson is an ex-con who spent time in federal prison for tax offenses. See The Law that Never Was. His own "sixteenth amendment was not ratified" argument is completely bogus from a legal standpoint, and (as noted in the article on Benson's book) has been ruled to be part of a fraudulent scheme. The argument also has been ruled legally invalid -- over and over, in leading federal court cases. Since it appears Badnarik has espoused this kind of stuff, I want to be very precise about what I say about it in the article (even more so than normal, especially since this is article on a living person). Badnarik himself might not be aware of the criminal background of Benson, Benson's prior tax problems, or the "legal" status of this kind of stuff. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Radio Host[edit]

Mr. Badnarik hosted the radio program 'lighting the fires of liberty' for almost 2 years. This was his most recent, and probably most public project, yet no mention of it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of the ZIP code section[edit]

Is there any reason for this page to contain a description of Badnarik's views on ZIP codes? I'm not aware of this being an issue that a lot of people care about, and there's no indication that Badnarik is fanatical about it either--it was just something he said in response to an interviewer's question. The only reason it's in the article, as far as I can tell, is to make him sound kind of loony.

It's been there for a while, so I won't delete it right away, but I'd like to know if anyone has a good reason to keep it in.

Jwsinclair (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)