Gary Johnson says he's not a libertarian, supports some government in social problems

[BenIsForRon]

Interesting.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/09/washington-wire-q-a-gary-johnson/

I don't know if he has the personality to get elected, but I would love to have him for president.

[Matt Collins]

His book is entitled "7 Tenants of Good Government". Libertarians think the phrase "good government" is a misnomer.

[jmdrake]

He totally missed what Rand was saying about the civil rights act. But that's probably because in the aftermath many Rand Paul supporters screwed up what Rand was saying. Rand's position wasn't the libertarian "right to discriminate" argument, but the title 2 of the CRA is based on a bastardized view of the interstate commerce clause. The federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction over most private businesses. That's different from Gary Johnson's support of smoking bans because, as far as I know, there are no federal smoking bans. (I know they exist for commercial airlines, but that's definitely something involved in interstate commerce).

[djdellisanti4]

Well this gives me some serious doubts about Johnson. I'd still vote for him over many other candidates, but it just pisses me off that guys like Rand and Johnson try to distance themselves from what appears to be their philosophical roots. Maybe Johnson is sincere in that he truly doesn't believe he is a total libertarian, but I hope he is just saying some of these things to make himself look more electable. We saw what happened to Rand when he came out against the Civil Rights Act. I guess it's best that only the more experienced, established and articulate libertarians say things like that, while guys like Rand and Johnson try to appear more electable.

[eqcitizen]

I agree; the first part of the Q&A really disheartens me about Johnson. When he says things like "I was opposed to the government mandating that restaurants not allow people to smoke, believing it becomes the customer’s choice whether they go in or not. But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren’t they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don’t smoke?"
The employee are not hostages, they can leave whenever they wish. This is the same type of argument a democrat would make.

[jmdrake]

Well this gives me some serious doubts about Johnson. I'd still vote for him over many other candidates, but it just pisses me off that guys like Rand and Johnson try to distance themselves from what appears to be their philosophical roots. Maybe Johnson is sincere in that he truly doesn't believe he is a total libertarian, but I hope he is just saying some of these things to make himself look more electable. We saw what happened to Rand when he came out against the Civil Rights Act. I guess it's best that only the more experienced, established and articulate libertarians say things like that, while guys like Rand and Johnson try to appear more electable.

Except Rand never came out against the Civil Rights Act. Seriously he never did. He never even said he was against title 2 of the Civil Rights Act. He said he would have tried to reword title 2 had he been in congress at the time. People on the left misinterpreted what he said in order to smear him and libertarians misinterpreted him out of wishful thinking. The fact is that title 2 is problematic from a constitutional point of view as well as a libertarian one. There are possible constitutional fixes but no possible libertarian fixes. There's no way to "reword" title 2 of the CRA and make it acceptable to libertarians. At least none that I can think of.

[BenIsForRon]

Rand's position wasn't the libertarian "right to discriminate" argument, but the title 2 of the CRA is based on a bastardized view of the interstate commerce clause.

Yeah, he never made that point well on Maddow. It'd be cool if he said he supports a CRA constitutional amendment, because interstate commerce simply doesn't cover it.

[nate895]

I have always had my doubts about Johnson, and never thought he had the ability to get half of the votes Paul got to begin with. Getting behind him would simply alienate the paleoconservative and the more radical libertarian types, and not attract many new Republican voters.

[low preference guy]

Yeah, he never made that point well on Maddow. It'd be cool if he said he supports a CRA constitutional amendment, because interstate commerce simply doesn't cover it.

He would never support a constitutional amendment for that. He believes in private property.

BenIsForRon is here once again to give the statist position.

[low preference guy]

lame. he now supports smoking bans? super lame.

that's probably a deal breaker to me.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, he never made that point well on Maddow. It'd be cool if he said he supports a CRA constitutional amendment, because interstate commerce simply doesn't cover it.

He tried to, but she was too ignorant or arrogant to get it. He brought up the interstate commerce clause after all and she just ignored that point. Then again maybe she just didn't know what that meant.

[trey4sports]

lame. he now supports smoking bans? super lame.

that's probably a deal breaker to me.

lol, the federal reserve, a global war on terror, heinous war on drugs, deteriorating national soverignty, debt to out eyeballs and your dealbreaker is......... public smoking?

I get what you're saying and agree that it's lame as hell, but cmon. GJ is a good candidate

[jmdrake]

He would never support a constitutional amendment for that. He believes in private property.

BenIsForRon is here once again to give the statist position.

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. You don't know. You just know the position you wish he'd take. Rand Paul has taken some positions many of us wish he would not have taken. This issue pales by comparison. The bottom line is that if Rand was publicly taking the "right to discriminate" position he would have (or at least should have) said he'd vote to repeal title 2 as opposed to "reword" it. Maybe he was just taking that nuanced position for political reason. Fair enough. But let him take his own positions and quit trying to take them for him. That just muddies the waters and has people saying stupid stuff like "Rand flip flopped" when he really didn't.

[djdellisanti4]

Except Rand never came out against the Civil Rights Act. Seriously he never did. He never even said he was against title 2 of the Civil Rights Act. He said he would have tried to reword title 2 had he been in congress at the time. People on the left misinterpreted what he said in order to smear him and libertarians misinterpreted him out of wishful thinking. The fact is that title 2 is problematic from a constitutional point of view as well as a libertarian one. There are possible constitutional fixes but no possible libertarian fixes. There's no way to "reword" title 2 of the CRA and make it acceptable to libertarians. At least none that I can think of.

Yeah I see what you/Rand are saying, I just kind of hate that they are trying to distance themselves from libertarianism.

I feel like they aren't being true to what they actually believe in, or maybe this is what they really believe. We'll probably never know in some cases, because I doubt the Civil Rights Act will be an issue any time soon.

[The Dude]

Johnson should be focusing on getting a seat in the Senate or vying to be Ron's VP in 2012. It would be asinine for Gary Johnson to try to run for the Presidency when he knows Ron Paul is the liberty movement's rallying flag and he would just be taking away from that. Honestly, I don't know who Johnson is trying to pander to. all of Ron's supporters will stick with Ron and GJ's abortion stance will scare away any social cons at first sight. If Johnson wants to be President, get a seat in Congress and build name recognition and let Ron have the spotlight we have all worked so hard for.

[low preference guy]

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. You don't know. You just know the position you wish he'd take. Rand Paul has taken some positions many of us wish he would not have taken. This issue pales by comparison. The bottom line is that if Rand was publicly taking the "right to discriminate" position he would have (or at least should have) said he'd vote to repeal title 2 as opposed to "reword" it. Maybe he was just taking that nuanced position for political reason. Fair enough. But let him take his own positions and quit trying to take them for him. That just muddies the waters and has people saying stupid stuff like "Rand flip flopped" when he really didn't.

Anyone with a brain would know Rand Paul appreciates private property and wouldn't support a CRA constitutional amendment. But we all know you don't have a brain, so I'm not surprised by your ignorant post.

[Kotin]

Anyone with a brain would know Rand Paul appreciates private property and wouldn't support a CRA constitutional amendment. But we all know you don't have a brain, so I'm not surprised by your ignorant post.

lol play nice...

[Fredom101]

The more I learn about GJ, the less I like. "Small government" is what republicans have been SAYING for years, but DOING the exact opposite. Why should I think GJ is actually going to do anything differently? He's Ron Paul lite, at best. :(

[jmdrake]

Anyone with a brain would know Rand Paul appreciates private property and wouldn't support a CRA constitutional amendment. But we all know you don't have a brain, so I'm not surprised by your ignorant post.

Right. Says the guy that selectively doesn't know the meaning of the word "implied". :rolleyes: We all know that Rand is running as a constitutional conservative and not a libertarian. We also know (those of us who have brains which excludes you) that Ron Paul was all over the map on 9/11. During the election he said that people talking about 9/11 "weren't helping him". After the campaign when asked by a truther why he didn't "tell the truth about 9/11" he said "because that's too controversial to me". Common sense (which you lack) would let you know that Ron and Rand both keep certain personal beliefs close to the vest in order to stay politically viable. The right thing to do for 9/11 truthers during the 2008 election was not to make that an issue for Ron Paul's campaign. The right thing to do for rabid libertarians such as yourself in 2010 is not to make the "right to discriminate" part of Rand Paul's election. But I don't expect you to have any integrity.

[jmdrake]

lol play nice...

Says the wimpy "me to" to "big dog". Roof!

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/bigdog.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

His book is entitled "7 Tenants of Good Government". Libertarians think the phrase "good government" is a misnomer.

It always has been thus far. It would be impressive if that ever changed.

[low preference guy]

Right. Says the guy that selectively doesn't know the meaning of the word "implied". :rolleyes: We all know that Rand is running as a constitutional conservative and not a libertarian. We also know (those of us who have brains which excludes you) that Ron Paul was all over the map on 9/11. During the election he said that people talking about 9/11 "weren't helping him". After the campaign when asked by a truther why he didn't "tell the truth about 9/11" he said "because that's too controversial to me". Common sense (which you lack) would let you know that Ron and Rand both keep certain personal beliefs close to the vest in order to stay politically viable. The right thing to do for 9/11 truthers during the 2008 election was not to make that an issue for Ron Paul's campaign. The right thing to do for rabid libertarians such as yourself in 2010 is not to make the "right to discriminate" part of Rand Paul's election. But I don't expect you to have any integrity.

jmdrake can be given the lamest RPF poster award right now.

if you disagree, tell me where I tried to make the CRA part of Rand Paul's election?

all i said was that Rand Paul won't support a constitutional amendment to allow the CRA, which he won't. then he proceeded to type the wacko post you can see above.

[jmdrake]

Yeah I see what you/Rand are saying, I just kind of hate that they are trying to distance themselves from libertarianism.

I feel like they aren't being true to what they actually believe in, or maybe this is what they really believe. We'll probably never know in some cases, because I doubt the Civil Rights Act will be an issue any time soon.

I hope the Civil Rights Act won't be an issue anytime soon. If it is then we have really regressed as a country. I don't think there are a bunch of white people just itching to exclude black from their businesses. And a right that you aren't interested in enforcing isn't really relevant. (When's the last time you heard anybody talking about the non quartering of soldiers for instance?) What is at stake right now is the interstate commerce clause. That's the bad precedence that title 2 of the civil rights act is based. You'll have a hard time finding people wanting to even have a "right to discriminate" and you'll have a nearly impossible time finding people actively seeking to enforce that right. (Your only constituency there is the very "Don Black" crowd Ron Paul spent so much time trying to distance himself from.) But you won't have a hard time finding people who think that the federal government shouldn't have the right to tell people what to grow in their own gardens! That's the bad decision that started this bad precedence on the front end (Wickard v. Filburn - upholding a federal fine against a farmer for growing extra grain to feed his family and livestock) and it's what keeps that bad doctrine hanging on by a thread (Gozales v. Raich - upholding federal enforcement of marijuana laws over the will of the California voters by clinging to the idea that a plant grown by a single person for her own use fit under "interstate commerce"). You reach the same ends without having to "make up rights" that might be important to (some) libertarians but are not spelled out in the constitution. And you get there by bringing in people who actually want to exercise a right for real than for people who are arguing for it just for the sake of arguing. After all, I'm willing to bet there are more people who want the freedom to grow their own marijuana than want to discriminate against someone on the basis of race. I'm 100% certain you'd find more people interested in the freedom to grow other crops such as hemp or even peanuts on a large scale without getting "permission" from the federal government.

[jmdrake]

jmdrake can be given the lamest RPF poster award right now.

if you disagree, tell me where I tried to make the CRA part of Rand Paul's election?

all i said was that Rand Paul won't support a constitutional amendment to allow the CRA, which he won't. then he proceeded to type the wacko post you can see above.

The same way 9/11 truthers were accused of trying to make 9/11 part of Ron Paul's 2008 election. We were told over and over again "Ron Paul has distanced himself from 9/11 so quit saying he's a 9/11 truther". Personally I quit saying that once Ron Paul made his position clear. In this case Rand has made his position clear but you are still trying to attribute a different position to him. And you're doing it on a public forum that's indexed by Google. Don't put words in Rand Paul's mouth. If he believes your position on the CRA and actually wants to take it then he eventually will. But it's possible that he was actually telling the truth to Rachel Maddow when he said he'd have tried to modify title 2 as opposed to repealing it. It arrogance as opposed to "using your whole brain" to assume someone else has the exact position as you do on an issue.

[Fredom101]

How did we go from debating Gary Johnson to 9/11 truth? :confused::confused:

[jmdrake]

How did we go from debating Gary Johnson to 9/11 truth? :confused::confused:

Simple. Gary Johnson criticized Rand Paul on the CRA. Some people still want to attribute a position to Rand on the CRA that Rand never publicly took and now has publicly denied. I pointed out how that's no different from truthers claiming Ron Paul was a "secret truther" even though Ron Paul publicly denied that. Let Rand and Ron stake out their own positions. At least during the duration of the campaign.

[american.swan]

The more I learn about GJ, the less I like. "Small government" is what republicans have been SAYING for years, but DOING the exact opposite. Why should I think GJ is actually going to do anything differently? He's Ron Paul lite, at best. :(

Because his veto record in New Mexico is pretty awesome!! He has more credibility with his New Mexico record than any other candidate except Dr. Ron. Rand can't even match Johnson's voting record, because Rand hasn't held office.

There will be a LOT copy cat con artist running for President in 2012....Johnson and Ron will have the voting record to back it up.

[james1906]

How did we go from debating Gary Johnson to 9/11 truth? :confused::confused:

I see you're new here, let me show you around.....

[low preference guy]

How did we go from debating Gary Johnson to 9/11 truth? :confused::confused:

the lamest poster of RPF can just pull that off.

jmdrake is worse than Rudy Guiliani. At least Guiliani resisted the urge to talk about 9/11 for a while.

[jmdrake]

the lamest poster of RPF can just pull that off.

jmdrake is worse than Rudy Guiliani. At least Guiliani resisted the urge to talk about 9/11 for a while.

Uh-huh. Just hide behind your ad hominems and ignore the facts. You're acting like the worst truthers by trying to saddle Rand Paul with a position he never publicly took and in fact repudiated. For what purpose I don't know. Pure selfishness I guess.

[YumYum]

Q: What are they outraged about?
A: That outrage is based on the fact that we’re bankrupt. Forty-three cents on every dollar we’re spending is borrowed and people are outraged over spending that’s out of control and the fact that taxes are going up across the board. It’s my belief that we need to cut government spending by 43%.

Q: Should defense spending also be cut?
A: It has to be. … We’re building roads, schools, bridges, highways and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’re borrowing 43 cents in every dollar to do this. And we have troops in Europe, we have troops in Japan, we have troops in South Korea.

Q: What else?
A: Social Security, that really needs to be reformed. Medicaid probably needs to be capped when it comes to the states. Medicare, there needs to be some sort of means testing.

Q: How would you reform Social Security?
A: The retirement age needs to be raised. A portion of Social Security ought to be privatized, if not all. And there probably needs to be some means testing. It’s a Ponzi scheme that’s not sustainable.

Q: What is the mathematical probability that this economic mess can be turned around?
A. Zero.

Q. Is there hope for this country?
A. No.

:D

[Knightskye]

Johnson 2012.

[Kludge]

Q: What is the mathematical probability that this economic mess can be turned around?
A. Zero.

Q. Is there hope for this country?
A. No.


Johnson 2012.

+1

[stu2002]

never win big elections of consequence.

They make great Dog Catchers and Clerks of Court however.

[silentshout]

I agree; the first part of the Q&A really disheartens me about Johnson. When he says things like "I was opposed to the government mandating that restaurants not allow people to smoke, believing it becomes the customer’s choice whether they go in or not. But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren’t they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don’t smoke?"
The employee are not hostages, they can leave whenever they wish. This is the same type of argument a democrat would make.

Exactly. I was bummed to read this. I really like most of his views, but this is ridiculous..the employees are not held hostage, they can work elsewhere. I cannot stand indoor smoke but i don't think the government should have any saissue the matter.

I also don't like the trend of distancing oneself from the libertarian label rather than owning it and state where one differs from it, if at all.

Other than that, i do like him as a candidate. He and Ron should run together :)

[Fredom101]

Big Government Gary is simply another collectivist politician. I'm so disappointed to say this, but you can't deny the truth.

[jmdrake]

Exactly. I was bummed to read this. I really like most of his views, but this is ridiculous..the employees are not held hostage, they can work elsewhere. I cannot stand indoor smoke but i don't think the government should have any say in the matter.

I also do not like the fact that candidates are shrinking from the libertarian label. I would prefer that they own it and say where they differ from it.

Sounds like Gary is trying to win support from left-leaners or former Democrats like myself, i guess. However, i guess i was never a very good dem because I have no issue with what rand said nor am i into govt-enforced smoking bans.

Gary Johnson isn't running for state office at this point. If he's running for president, and if he properly understands the constitutional role of the federal government in private business (there is no role unless it really involved foreign or interstate commerce) then it's a non issue. Further if he understands that then he's in line with what Rand actually said even if he doesn't realize it. A lot of folks here just don't get it. It's not the civil rights act that gave the federal government the power to regulate private business. It's bad supreme court precedence regarding the interstate commerce clause. Even if the entire CRA was repealed by congress, that same bad precedent would still survive. It's the bad precedent that needs to be gotten rid of.

[Fredom101]

Simple. Gary Johnson criticized Rand Paul on the CRA. Some people still want to attribute a position to Rand on the CRA that Rand never publicly took and now has publicly denied. I pointed out how that's no different from truthers claiming Ron Paul was a "secret truther" even though Ron Paul publicly denied that. Let Rand and Ron stake out their own positions. At least during the duration of the campaign.

Aren't we all 9/11 truthers? Do you not want the truth about 9/11?

[ChaosControl]

Considering what some die-hard libertarians think, I don't really consider myself a libertarian either.

[jmdrake]

Aren't we all 9/11 truthers? Do you not want the truth about 9/11?

No. We aren't all 9/11 truthers. I am. "low preference guy" is not. He's one that wastes valuable energy putting down his fellow Ron Paul supporters if they ever mention questions about 9/11 because that "hurts Ron Paul" and "Ron said he's not a truther". Even if a truther isn't saying "Ron Paul believes this" people like LPG get mad. He also thinks the official story is true. That's why I find it ironic that he wants to publicly assign a position to Rand that would be political suicide and that Rand has distanced himself from. Either beliefs where are "political suicide" are on the table or they aren't.

[Fredom101]

What you're saying is that low preference guy wants to be lied to about 9/11? That's all I'm trying to get at. To me it doesn't matter what Ron Paul thinks. I want the truth about issues, and I would hope most here would also rather not be satisfied with government propaganda for explaining events.

[AlexMerced]

No. We aren't all 9/11 truthers. I am. "low preference guy" is not. He's one that wastes valuable energy putting down his fellow Ron Paul supporters if they ever mention questions about 9/11 because that "hurts Ron Paul" and "Ron said he's not a truther". Even if a truther isn't saying "Ron Paul believes this" people like LPG get mad. He also thinks the official story is true. That's why I find it ironic that he wants to publicly assign a position to Rand that would be political suicide and that Rand has distanced himself from. Either beliefs where are "political suicide" are on the table or they aren't.

Well, I'm tired of discussing the truther issue, but at the end of the day we are coalition of lots of different groups with different belief united by a few self-evident of truths, particularly liberty.

Now if you have a coalition, to maximize it's effects you use the power to those common areas (cut spending, end the fed, end the welfare state, end corpratism) those are four things we all pretty much agree on and can accomplish by working together.

My issue with people who focus on the issues where there isn't much consensus (immigration, social issues, truther/birther) it divides the coalition cause people who'd otherwise help on the areas of overwhelming support decide to distance themselves.

It's not about what helps Ron Paul, it's about maintaining a coalition to accomplish at least the most basic of our goals. Does this mean you shouldn't voice your opinion and champion your issues, not at all, but people should questions what's the appropriate platform for different issues.

We need coalition building by finding common ground, not bickering over the uncommon ground which can be revisited after the arguably more essential issues are addressed in ending the fed and cutting the budget.

If we can't remain united, we fall prey to the same illness as congress and the two party system focusing on differences that seperate us instead of the similarities that unite us.

[ChaosControl]

What you're saying is that low preference guy wants to be lied to about 9/11? That's all I'm trying to get at. To me it doesn't matter what Ron Paul thinks. I want the truth about issues, and I would hope most here would also rather not be satisfied with government propaganda for explaining events.

Truther in this context isn't merely someone who wants the truth, it is generally used to describe the people who think it was all an inside job to get us into a war.

[AlexMerced]

Truther in this context isn't merely someone who wants the truth, it is generally used to describe the people who think it was all an inside job to get us into a war.

Correct, I usally give credit to conspiracy theorist for their value of transparency, and thinks it's an important movement to ackownledge cause it's growth signals growing government transparency controls.

But I personally don't think most of the theories or evidence makes much if any sense from a point of view of the interests of those involved. Although, just cause I don't agree with the specific conspiracies (birther/truther) doesn't mean I'm not willing to fight for transparency in auditing the fed, SEC transparency, etc.

At the end of the day, the root value of the Truth position is transparency, and that's what we have in common and that should be the focus.

[Fredom101]

Truther in this context isn't merely someone who wants the truth, it is generally used to describe the people who think it was all an inside job to get us into a war.

I guess I'm saying small-'t' truther, not "I believe everything said in Loose Change" big-'T' Truther. ;)

[Fredom101]

Anyway, I consider myself a truther, but I fully agree that this should not be anything to spend much time on. It's interesting, but even discovering the 100% truth about 911 won't get us any closer to liberty. Many truthers I met were socialists, so what they want and what I want are polar opposites!

[AlexMerced]

I guess I'm saying small-'t' truther, not "I believe everything said in Loose Change" big-'T' Truther. ;)

still the word has been pretty locked in to a certain meaning

Kinda like if I'm happy I'll no longer say "I'm Gay" cause the words meaning has changed over time.

If you for truth and not Truth, then probably calling yourself a transparency advocate is the safest way to go without giving the wrong idea.

[jmdrake]

Uh-huh. And some in this coalition have different views on the civil rights act as well. Some want to go with the libertarian "right to discriminate" viewpoint that people thought Rand Paul was advocating. Others (like me) prefer the "restrict the federal government to its actual constitutional role" position that Rand Paul was actually advocating. Since either position reduces the scope of the federal government, why do some insist on the former as opposed to the latter? In fact the latter position does more to restrict the federal government. The federal government had already totally usurped states rights on the matter of regulating private business long before 1964. And the southern states went right along with it. (Southern states were solidly democratic until this point and it was democratic president FDR that destroyed states rights in 1942 by stealth). A repeal of the civil rights act would not repeal the 1942 precedent that gave the federal government power to regulate all businesses in the name of "interstate commerce". And some of the arguments put forward by libertarians like "Should blacks have to serve klansmen" are just plain silly. Under current law businesses can discriminate based on dress code. (Yes, even barring dress that is seen as "black" such as baggy pants is not illegal). So there's nothing to stop someone from barring someone else from coming in their store in a klan robe or having any other klan identifying marks.

Anyway, we either totally put aside divisiveness for the sake of the coalition and move forward, or groups of us will be "selectively divisive" when it fits their goals and the coalition fractures. That's all I'm saying. Be consistent.


Well, I'm tired of discussing the truther issue, but at the end of the day we are coalition of lots of different groups with different belief united by a few self-evident of truths, particularly liberty.

Now if you have a coalition, to maximize it's effects you use the power to those common areas (cut spending, end the fed, end the welfare state, end corpratism) those are four things we all pretty much agree on and can accomplish by working together.

My issue with people who focus on the issues where there isn't much consensus (immigration, social issues, truther/birther) it divides the coalition cause people who'd otherwise help on the areas of overwhelming support decide to distance themselves.

It's not about what helps Ron Paul, it's about maintaining a coalition to accomplish at least the most basic of our goals. Does this mean you shouldn't voice your opinion and champion your issues, not at all, but people should questions what's the appropriate platform for different issues.

We need coalition building by finding common ground, not bickering over the uncommon ground which can be revisited after the arguably more essential issues are addressed in ending the fed and cutting the budget.

If we can't remain united, we fall prey to the same illness as congress and the two party system focusing on differences that seperate us instead of the similarities that unite us.

[jmdrake]

Truther in this context isn't merely someone who wants the truth, it is generally used to describe the people who think it was all an inside job to get us into a war.

Actually that's not correct. There are LIHOP and MIHOP truthers. (Let it happen on purpose versus made it happen on purpose). If you're merely a LIHOP truther you don't necessarily believe the government "did it", but you believe the government at least had actionable intelligence to stop it and chose not to. Sort of like the people who believe FDR had advance warning about Pearl Harbor and chose not to give that information to the fleet admiral. (It's a known fact that British intelligence had cracked the Japanese code. The only think really up to debate is whether they shared that info with FDR). Even MIHOP truthers don't necessarily think it was "the government" but rather "rogue elements within the government". For example, everybody knows now that the anthrax attacks a month later came from inside the government. The only debate left is whether it was a "lone nutcase" or a broader conspiracy.

[GabrielHandler]

Gary has a great record from his time as Republican Governor in New Mexico in a heavily Democratic state. Everyone is judging him pretty harshly for a one sentence statement that seems abridged and left unexplained overall. He is a good potential 2012 candidate, way better then most of what we have out there. I encourage people to actually look into his issues instead of gaining an opinion from an article that was most likely edited.

[jmdrake]

Gary has a great record from his time as Republican Governor in New Mexico in a heavily Democratic state. Everyone is judging him pretty harshly for a one sentence statement that seems abridged and left unexplained overall. He is a good potential 2012 candidate, way better then most of what we have out there. I encourage people to actually look into his issues instead of gaining an opinion from an article that was most likely edited.

True. People want to talk about "coalitions". Well this "coalition" isn't 100% purist libertarian. It also includes constitutionalists, people who want to restrict government to its properly defined role. If that happens maybe people will be interested in going further. But we won't even get there if we torpedo our own candidates over minor issues.

[erowe1]

Here are some other people who are not libertarians:
Ron Paul
Rand Paul
Peter Schiff
Bob Barr
Chuck Baldwin
B.J. Lawson
Justin Amash
John Hostettler
Ken Buck
Pat Buchanan
Mark Sanford
Jesse Ventura
Clint Didier
Jeff Flake
Jimmy Duncan
Sharon Angle
Terri McCormick
Chuck Devore
Mike Lee
Jason Chaffetz
etc.

So what?

And, come to think of it, the label "libertarian" tends to hurt our guys more than it helps them anyway. We ought to be trying to get "X is not a libertarian" stories in the MSM about all of them, and spread those stories among Republicans as widely as possible.

[Fredom101]

Here are some other people who are not libertarians:
Ron Paul
Rand Paul
Peter Schiff
Bob Barr
Chuck Baldwin
B.J. Lawson
Justin Amash
John Hostettler
Ken Buck
Pat Buchanan
Mark Sanford
Jesse Ventura
Clint Didier
Jeff Flake
Jimmy Duncan
Sharon Angle
Terri McCormick
Chuck Devore
Mike Lee
Jason Chaffetz
etc.

So what?

And, come to think of it, the label "libertarian" tends to hurt our guys more than it helps them anyway. We ought to be trying to get "X is not a libertarian" stories in the MSM about all of them, and spread those stories among Republicans as widely as possible.

Ron Paul can be considered a libertarian, even though he's a big-R Republican.
Most of the others on that list are, like you said, not libertarians. They also won't be bringing us any liberty through their taxpayer funded positions, unfortunately. :(

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul can be considered a libertarian, even though he's a big-R Republican.
Most of the others on that list are, like you said, not libertarians. They also won't be bringing us any liberty through their taxpayer funded positions, unfortunately. :(

George Washington and many of the founding fathers weren't libertarians either. (Whiskey rebellion anybody?) So what? I don't get the "purists" libertarians. How someone can say that repealing the unPatriot Act, privatizing social security, getting rid of warrantless wiretapping, getting rid of federal drug laws etc isn't "bringing us any liberty" is beyond me. For the record even some of Ron Paul's votes weren't "libertarian" by some people's definition. He voted for the late term abortion bill. (Some libertarians are pro life, but others think if you don't accept killing a fetus up until the last second before natural birth you aren't libertarian). He even spoke out against Lawrence v. Texas on states rights grounds. (Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws. See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html) And don't think he did that just to get re-elected. This was 2003, long after he had gone against the majority of his own party in the Iraq war vote. Ron is something of a libertarian - states rights - social conservative hybrid.

[Fredom101]

George Washington and many of the founding fathers weren't libertarians either. (Whiskey rebellion anybody?) So what? I don't get the "purists" libertarians. How someone can say that repealing the unPatriot Act, privatizing social security, getting rid of warrantless wiretapping, getting rid of federal drug laws etc isn't "bringing us any liberty" is beyond me. For the record even some of Ron Paul's votes weren't "libertarian" by some people's definition. He voted for the late term abortion bill. (Some libertarians are pro life, but others think if you don't accept killing a fetus up until the last second before natural birth you aren't libertarian). He even spoke out against Lawrence v. Texas on states rights grounds. (Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws. See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html) And don't think he did that just to get re-elected. This was 2003, long after he had gone against the majority of his own party in the Iraq war vote. Ron is something of a libertarian - states rights - social conservative hybrid.

I'm not a founding fathers worshipper. They were ultimately statists. Even Thomas Jefferson, as great as his quotes are, was not even a non-interventionist!

It's time for a new view on government, instead of "going back to the constitution", which has proven not to work.

[Fredom101]

George Washington and many of the founding fathers weren't libertarians either. (Whiskey rebellion anybody?) So what? I don't get the "purists" libertarians. How someone can say that repealing the unPatriot Act, privatizing social security, getting rid of warrantless wiretapping, getting rid of federal drug laws etc isn't "bringing us any liberty" is beyond me. For the record even some of Ron Paul's votes weren't "libertarian" by some people's definition. He voted for the late term abortion bill. (Some libertarians are pro life, but others think if you don't accept killing a fetus up until the last second before natural birth you aren't libertarian). He even spoke out against Lawrence v. Texas on states rights grounds. (Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws. See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html) And don't think he did that just to get re-elected. This was 2003, long after he had gone against the majority of his own party in the Iraq war vote. Ron is something of a libertarian - states rights - social conservative hybrid.

BTW, Big Government Gary is not against the War on Drugs, just wants to change it. He's not even against the income tax! That's not a pro-liberty position at all. No, he would not bring us more liberty, unfortunately.

[jmdrake]

I'm not a founding fathers worshipper. They were ultimately statists. Even Thomas Jefferson, as great as his quotes are, was not even a non-interventionist!

It's time for a new view on government, instead of "going back to the constitution", which has proven not to work.

Neither am I. That's not the point. I certainly think we had more liberty years ago than we do now. In some ways some of what the founding fathers did needed to be undone (mainly enshrining the abomination called slavery into the law) but in many ways we had more liberty years ago, especially prior to the New Deal. So repealing some of what has happened would give some more liberty. Saying that if someone doesn't fit your definition of a libertarian then your not getting any liberty is hyperbole IMO.

By the way, you never addressed the points on brought up with regards to Dr. Paul. Do you think supporting states rights over individual rights when it comes to sodomy laws is pure libertarianism?


BTW, Big Government Gary is not against the War on Drugs, just wants to change it. He's not even against the income tax! That's not a pro-liberty position at all. No, he would not bring us more liberty, unfortunately.

Source? This is what I've found from Gary Johnson on the war on drugs.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4993

Congress should withdraw from the war on drugs and let the states set their own policies, just as they already do for alcohol. For their part, the states should prohibit drug sales to children, just as alcohol sales to children are prohibited today. Driving under the influence of drugs should be illegal. But beyond such obvious restrictions, states should be free to set the drug policies that make sense to them, up to and including sales to adults by licensed stores, much as alcohol is sold today.

Now maybe you want Gary Johnson to say that 7-11 should be able to sell crack to kiddies (I've heard that argument from some ancaps), but that's not a politically tenable position. I've never seen Ron Paul take such an extreme position either.

[NewFederalist]

Johnson should be focusing on getting a seat in the Senate...


I think he could have done that if he wanted to when Domenici retired. I don't think Johnson particularly wants to be in elective office again. When he left the governorship after two successful terms he pretty much said he was done. His goals were to participate in an "Iron Man" competition and place well (which he did) and climb Mount Everest. I don't know if he did the mountain thing but perhaps I'll do an internet search to see. I lived in New Mexico while he was governor and he truly was superb but I don't believe he has the personality or the interest to become emeshed in D.C. politics.

[Fredom101]

Neither am I. That's not the point. I certainly think we had more liberty years ago than we do now. In some ways some of what the founding fathers did needed to be undone (mainly enshrining the abomination called slavery into the law) but in many ways we had more liberty years ago, especially prior to the New Deal. So repealing some of what has happened would give some more liberty. Saying that if someone doesn't fit your definition of a libertarian then your not getting any liberty is hyperbole IMO.

By the way, you never addressed the points on brought up with regards to Dr. Paul. Do you think supporting states rights over individual rights when it comes to sodomy laws is pure libertarianism?



Source? This is what I've found from Gary Johnson on the war on drugs.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4993

Congress should withdraw from the war on drugs and let the states set their own policies, just as they already do for alcohol. For their part, the states should prohibit drug sales to children, just as alcohol sales to children are prohibited today. Driving under the influence of drugs should be illegal. But beyond such obvious restrictions, states should be free to set the drug policies that make sense to them, up to and including sales to adults by licensed stores, much as alcohol is sold today.

Now maybe you want Gary Johnson to say that 7-11 should be able to sell crack to kiddies (I've heard that argument from some ancaps), but that's not a politically tenable position. I've never seen Ron Paul take such an extreme position either.

GJ contradicting himself on the Hannity show. He completely caved in and backed down to Hannity when asked about drugs as a whole. He said he only wants pot legalized. So which Gary is it? I'm not interested in "politcally tenable positions". That's what we've had for decades with politicians and it keeps getting worse. I'm for principles. True, Ron Paul is not 100% principled either, as you have pointed out (no I'm not for states rights, just individual rights). But he's far closer than the likes of GJ, Schiff, or any of those other names.

Maybe "we" did have more liberty years ago. I don't think it really matters. Let's say we could reset the clock bank to 1787 or whatever. Blacks would suddenly be considered 3/5ths of a person, and slavery would exist. Women didn't have any rights. Not everything was good. For some people, it may have been better. But if we accepted that we all must allow strangers in Washington DC to make decisions for our lives once again, the result would quickly turn into big government nanny state.

The problem is not the politicians. There will always be authoritarian sociopaths trying to gain control. The problem is looking at the government as a benevolent organization that has simply just got off course, and with the "right people" we can turn it around. That is the ultimate fantasy. If you can devise a system that doesn't involve all of us being forced around with guns, I'm interested. Otherwise, solutions like Gary Johnson just aren't going to make a damn bit of difference in our personal liberty.

[jmdrake]

GJ contradicting himself on the Hannity show. He completely caved in and backed down to Hannity when asked about drugs as a whole. He said he only wants pot legalized. So which Gary is it? I'm not interested in "politcally tenable positions". That's what we've had for decades with politicians and it keeps getting worse. I'm for principles. True, Ron Paul is not 100% principled either, as you have pointed out (no I'm not for states rights, just individual rights). But he's far closer than the likes of GJ, Schiff, or any of those other names.


Ok. I haven't seen that clip. I'll have to check it out. That said, would you be against the California propositions to legalize medical marijuana first and then to legalize marijuana generally just because they didn't also legalize heroine? Do you think the people behind those propositions should have said "Our ultimate aim is to have crack legally sold at convenience stores"? The positions they took were "politically tenable". Should they have been more "principled".



Maybe "we" did have more liberty years ago. I don't think it really matters. Let's say we could reset the clock bank to 1787 or whatever. Blacks would suddenly be considered 3/5ths of a person, and slavery would exist. Women didn't have any rights. Not everything was good. For some people, it may have been better. But if we accepted that we all must allow strangers in Washington DC to make decisions for our lives once again, the result would quickly turn into big government nanny state.


Ummm....I already pointed out the old problems such as slavery. I agree (especially being black myself). The problem was, as you point, that they too narrowly defined who would receive the freedoms laid out. But I think it's possible to turn the clock back on the "New Deal" and other abominations without turning the clock back on the slavery, women's sufferage and desegregation.



The problem is not the politicians. There will always be authoritarian sociopaths trying to gain control. The problem is looking at the government as a benevolent organization that has simply just got off course, and with the "right people" we can turn it around. That is the ultimate fantasy. If you can devise a system that doesn't involve all of us being forced around with guns, I'm interested. Otherwise, solutions like Gary Johnson just aren't going to make a damn bit of difference in our personal liberty.

Who's looking at government as a "benevolent organization"? I've never used that term. I agree that the problem is that government has too much power. I'm looking for politicians who are interested in decreasing government power. Even if Gary is only looking at decreasing government power with regards to marijuana laws that's still a decrease.

[Fredom101]

Ok. I haven't seen that clip. I'll have to check it out. That said, would you be against the California propositions to legalize medical marijuana first and then to legalize marijuana generally just because they didn't also legalize heroine? Do you think the people behind those propositions should have said "Our ultimate aim is to have crack legally sold at convenience stores"? The positions they took were "politically tenable". Should they have been more "principled".

I'm not sure what you're asking me here. If drugs were all legal, fewer teens would use them, and heroin was sold in drugstores before it was made illegal and there was never a chilhood heroin epidemic that I'm aware of. Sounds like fear mongering to me.




Ummm....I already pointed out the old problems such as slavery. I agree (especially being black myself). The problem was, as you point, that they too narrowly defined who would receive the freedoms laid out. But I think it's possible to turn the clock back on the "New Deal" and other abominations without turning the clock back on the slavery, women's sufferage and desegregation.

Sorry missed where you mentioned slavery. I would love to turn back the clock on the new deal of course, but it's too late. Politicians, once they have gained power in an area, have a very difficult time letting it go. It's in their blood. ;)




Who's looking at government as a "benevolent organization"? I've never used that term. I agree that the problem is that government has too much power. I'm looking for politicians who are interested in decreasing government power. Even if Gary is only looking at decreasing government power with regards to marijuana laws that's still a decrease.

Ok. I'm assuming that you thought government was worth saving. I do not. I don't think Gary would decrease the size of government any more than Ronald Reagan did, or than John McCain would have if elected. The government is a machine, and it's just blasting along right now. There is no reducing it or even slowing down its growth at this point. I think our best option is to literally kick back on the sidelines with a drink in our hands and just watch government implode, and then cheer and push for a brighter day.

BTW, I don't think legalizing then REGULATING marijuana is a decrease in government. Sure there would be no more arrests for pot possession but get ready for the Department of Marijuana Control (DOMC) and the Department of Drug And Alcohol Recovery (DDAR), and major taxes on weed.

Government, by nature, grows.

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure what you're asking me here. If drugs were all legal, fewer teens would use them, and heroin was sold in drugstores before it was made illegal and there was never a chilhood heroin epidemic that I'm aware of. Sounds like fear mongering to me.


You're making a rational argument that makes sense to you. I'm talking about a political argument about how to actually get a proposition to pass. Yes what I'm saying is fearmongering. What do you think the opposing side in a proposition battle is going to do? Come out with a chart with solid statistical evidence that proves their point? No. They're going to make a 30 second spot showing 10 year old Johnny buying bubble gum, some crack rocks and a pipe at 7-11 and they're going to run that ad 24/7 until Johnny's mom becomes hysterical. And now your principled proposition doesn't pass. Look at what happened to Jocelyn Elders when she merely said that the effects of drug legalization should be studied. The same thing holds true for a politician who talks about drug decriminalization. If he says "Oh don't worry about the kiddies. Most kids don't use heroine so we don't need to worry about preventing stores from selling it to them" that becomes a 30 second soundbite that kills his campaign.




Sorry missed where you mentioned slavery. I would love to turn back the clock on the new deal of course, but it's too late. Politicians, once they have gained power in an area, have a very difficult time letting it go. It's in their blood. ;)


Cool. I'm in total agreement on that. The only caveat is that I think parts of the new deal can be rolled back incrementally. I think Gary's idea on social security could possibly pass in today's climate. You can't kill it altogether, but you can start weaning the society off of it. (I believe Ron Paul's SS plan is similar).



Ok. I'm assuming that you thought government was worth saving. I do not. I don't think Gary would decrease the size of government any more than Ronald Reagan did, or than John McCain would have if elected. The government is a machine, and it's just blasting along right now. There is no reducing it or even slowing down its growth at this point. I think our best option is to literally kick back on the sidelines with a drink in our hands and just watch government implode, and then cheer and push for a brighter day.

BTW, I don't think legalizing then REGULATING marijuana is a decrease in government. Sure there would be no more arrests for pot possession but get ready for the Department of Marijuana Control (DOMC) and the Department of Drug And Alcohol Recovery (DDAR), and major taxes on weed.

Government, by nature, grows.

Fair enough assessment. I'm not the drug legalization expert. It's not even my main issue. I just know we have to start looking at doing something different.