PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson Questions whether employees are hostage to smoking environments




libertybrewcity
05-27-2011, 10:42 AM
Q: What did you think of Rand Paulís initial statements about the Civil Rights Act, that the government should not tell private businesses they canít discriminate? Thatís consistent with libertarian views, right? A: When he made those statements, I thought to myself, ďThis is probably why Iím a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line.Ē Iíd like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldnít have had any issues with it.

Q: You thought about this because of what Paul said? A: Yes. As a result of his statements, I found myself engaged in discussions over just that notion. I was trying to think of examples where I would have sided with the notion that government does have a role in that capacity. Something analogous is smoking in restaurants. I was opposed to the government mandating that restaurants not allow people to smoke, believing it becomes the customerís choice whether they go in or not. But then, I thought, what about the employees? Arenít they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they donít smoke?

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

Romulus
05-27-2011, 10:46 AM
seriously? GJ is done for me.. this guy has too many authoritarian tendencies.

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 10:47 AM
Gary Johnson supports Civil Rights Act 1964

So does Rand Paul.

But this shows you he doesn't understand the importance of private property.


I’d like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldn’t have had any issues with it.

BamaFanNKy
05-27-2011, 10:50 AM
Wait, you say he supports a smoking ban when he never said he does. Show me where he says he supports a nationwide smoking ban in that statement. You guys are lying about Gary Johnson like Fox misconstrues words of Ron. Keep lying, you are turning into the other side when you do.

libertybrewcity
05-27-2011, 10:53 AM
My bad, I accidentally said he does not civil rights act in the title when he does.



Wait, you say he supports a smoking ban when he never said he does. Show me where he says he supports a nationwide smoking ban in that statement. You guys are lying about Gary Johnson like Fox misconstrues words of Ron. Keep lying, you are turning into the other side when you do.

This is politics. People don't say things straight up or straight down. He said the employees are hostage to the environment. It's pretty clear.

Guitarzan
05-27-2011, 10:58 AM
Wait, you say he supports a smoking ban when he never said he does. Show me where he says he supports a nationwide smoking ban in that statement. You guys are lying about Gary Johnson like Fox misconstrues words of Ron. Keep lying, you are turning into the other side when you do.

He may not have said the words, but he sure implied that there is justification to undermine the principle of property rights. That raises the question of whether or not Johnson would be true to his supposed libertarian principles. And if you fail to recognize that from his comment here, then you, too, are being blinded by your bias for him.

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 11:00 AM
And if you fail to recognize that from his comment here, then you, too, are being blinded by your bias for him.

That or Bama doesn't care much about property rights.

jmdrake
05-27-2011, 11:13 AM
Trying to make the GOP primary about the 1964 Civil Rights Act in order to win over the 2% that support Gary Johnson is a great way to lose the election for Ron Paul. But if/when Ron's enemies attack him on this, the smart response is "The constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in intrastate commerce. If we continue to let the federal government overstep its bounds this way then Elena Kagan is right and congress can pass a law saying you have to eat certain foods or go to prison."

jmdrake
05-27-2011, 11:24 AM
My bad, I accidentally said he does not civil rights act in the title when he does.

This is politics. People don't say things straight up or straight down. He said the employees are hostage to the environment. It's pretty clear.

Sure. What's unclear is if he thinks that's a federal issue or a state issue. The problem is that many people don't understand the difference between a constitutional conservative and a social conservative. A constitutional conservative thinks the government can intervene but only in a constitutional way. A social conservative thinks the government can intervene in any way that fits his agenda. Take prohibition of alcohol. Passing an amendment to ban alcohol was not libertarian but it was constitutional. Back then nobody dared suggest that the interstate commerce clause gave the feds a blank check to do anything. But if they had a social conservative would have said "Okay. Since the federal government is all powerful congress should just pass a federal law banning alcohol." Constitutional conservatism does put significant limits on what the government can do (it's very difficult to pass an amendment for instance, and the power of the purse isn't an ironclad guarantee that the states will do what you want), but it doesn't go as far as hardcore libertarians would like.

CaptUSA
05-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Look, we have to stop this purity test. Gary Johnson is way better than most elected politicians. I appreciate Gary giving an honest statement here and I appreciate the fact that he's looking at the issue from both sides.

Now, I support Ron Paul, but I'm certainly not going to disparage anyone who has disagreements. I think we all must understand that with liberty, comes responsibility. And there are bound to be different lines for each individual as to how much of each they would like.

If we continue with this purity test of insinuating that anyone who disagrees with us is a statist, then we have no hope of regaining any liberty. The goal is to attract those that are interested in liberty and unite them. I think this kind of thing is harmful to our cause.

Austrian Econ Disciple
05-27-2011, 11:38 AM
Hey Gary I heard you might like Mike Huckabee. LOL.

specsaregood
05-27-2011, 11:42 AM
Look, we have to stop this purity test. Gary Johnson is way better than most elected politicians. I appreciate Gary giving an honest statement here and I appreciate the fact that he's looking at the issue from both sides.

Now, I support Ron Paul, but I'm certainly not going to disparage anyone who has disagreements. I think we all must understand that with liberty, comes responsibility. And there are bound to be different lines for each individual as to how much of each they would like.

If we continue with this purity test of insinuating that anyone who disagrees with us is a statist, then we have no hope of regaining any liberty. The goal is to attract those that are interested in liberty and unite them. I think this kind of thing is harmful to our cause.

At the same time, being willing to take the principled stand and unafraid to stick to it despite it being unpopular is exactly what changes minds, creates headlines and pushes the ball closer to the liberty side of the field. For example: Rand's recent stand in the Senate. He came under lots of pressure, was insulted on the Senate floor and stood strong on the principles many of us support. Wafflers that are willing to give in on this principles, end up backing down like some of the other Senators yesterday.

AndrewD
05-27-2011, 11:44 AM
Yea i've never been too keen on Gary. Ok he has some Libertarian views, great. But that is not a free-pass in my book. The guy is still subject to the same scrutiny as any other candidate in my books.

Why is he still getting a free-pass on these forums for his stance on Guantanamo and the tortures? That is a huge NO-GO.

Travlyr
05-27-2011, 11:48 AM
Look, we have to stop this purity test. Gary Johnson is way better than most elected politicians.

Gary Johnson had 8 years to free New Mexico. New Mexico is no freer than any other State. I doubt he would achieve better results at the federal level unless perhaps he was in the Senate.

CaptUSA
05-27-2011, 11:51 AM
At the same time, being willing to take the principled stand and unafraid to stick to it despite it being unpopular is exactly what changes minds, creates headlines and pushes the ball closer to the liberty side of the field. For example: Rand's recent stand in the Senate. He came under lots of pressure, was insulted on the Senate floor and stood strong on the principles many of us support. Wafflers that are willing to give in on this principles, end up backing down like some of the other Senators yesterday.

Yeah, absolutely! I'm not suggesting anyone change their stance here! I fully know that we're in the right. We should not in any way change our stance or fail to live up to our principles.

What I am suggesting is that we refrain from disparaging someone because they are not 100% with us. We need these people as well. We're never going to make all the people agree with us 100% no matter how much we may think that would preferable. Getting Paul elected is about building a coalition. If we call Johnson an "authoritarian", we end up driving his supporters away instead of bringing them in.

BamaFanNKy
05-27-2011, 02:25 PM
He may not have said the words, but he sure implied that there is justification to undermine the principle of property rights. That raises the question of whether or not Johnson would be true to his supposed libertarian principles. And if you fail to recognize that from his comment here, then you, too, are being blinded by your bias for him.

"Bias for him." Yep, having all this Ron Paul 2012 stuff shows my bias toward him. Seriously, you guys are ignorant if you take a throw away line in a print article. Unlike you guys I've actually talked to Gary. I've observed his record and he's a big 10th amendment, personal property, defender of the Constitution, friend of the liberty movement person. He is not some politician looking to promote himself like many. The guy has really been out of the spotlight for a little over 6 years and he's not trending in the Presidential race, so... at least be honest about him. We will all (hopefully) want to support him when he runs for Senator as I've heard there has been clamors for him to do so. Just be honest.

As for the Civil Rights Act.... Let it go. If you want to defend the opposition of it, you are asking for political defeat. It's a losing argument. On a personal level I get debating it. But, for a politician, suicide.... it's why Rand walked his statement back and said he'd vote for it, as Ron also said he would so.... are they undermining the principle of property rights?

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 02:29 PM
As for the Civil Rights Act.... Let it go. If you want to defend the opposition of it, you are asking for political defeat. It's a losing argument. On a personal level I get debating it. But, for a politician, suicide...

But going out of one's way saying one has no conflict whatsoever with it shows that one doesn't take property rights seriously.


it's why Rand walked his statement back and said he'd vote for it, as Ron also said he would so.... are they undermining the principle of property rights?

BULLSHIT

BamaFanNKy
05-27-2011, 02:31 PM
But going out of one's way saying one has no conflict whatsoever with it shows that Gary doesn't take property rights seriously.

BULLSHIT

I quoted like this because your second comment fits your first one.

BamaFanNKy
05-27-2011, 02:32 PM
Also, it was a newspaper interview. Again, what is said in print take with a grain of salt. Reporters skewed Rand Paul's words all through 2010 and I've learned, trust nothing written in print.

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 02:33 PM
I quoted like this because your second comment fits your first one.

Or more likely, because you want to distract from your lie about Ron Paul.

BamaFanNKy
05-27-2011, 02:37 PM
Or more likely, because you want to distract from your lie about Ron Paul.

You are right, I apologize. Someone had told me Ron said differently. Googled it, I was wrong on Ron. Rand is the only one to walk it back. So, all of you can call Rand a sell out to Private Property rights.

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 02:39 PM
So, all of you can call Rand a sell out to Private Property rights.

Rand didn't go out of his way unprompted to say that absolutely everything about the CRA was right and he has no objections with it.

If you want to call Rand a sellout, go ahead, but I think he is great.

BamaFanNKy
05-27-2011, 02:42 PM
Rand didn't go out of his way unprompted to say that absolutely everything about the CRA was right and he has no objections with it.

If you want to call Rand a sellout, go ahead, but I think he is great.

Neither did Gary but, you call him a sell out. Remember, I call both Rand and Gary great all the time and get called names by you. I also support Ron for President. Fact of the matter, you are hypocritical with your criticism.

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 02:43 PM
Neither did Gary but, you call him a sell out.

Where?

This is going out of one's way unprompted to say everything about the CRA was fine:


When he made those statements, I thought to myself, “This is probably why I’m a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line.” I’d like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldn’t have had any issues with it.

Read the part in bold.

Agorism
05-27-2011, 02:54 PM
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but Johnson's biggest problem is he is so that his personality is so dry.

BamaFanNKy
05-27-2011, 02:56 PM
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but Johnson's biggest problem is he is so that his personality is so dry.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puwTrLRhmw
hehe

Dr.3D
05-27-2011, 03:03 PM
But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren’t they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don’t smoke?

No, they can always work some place where the employer(property owner) doesn't allow smoking.

libertybrewcity
05-27-2011, 03:08 PM
Look, we have to stop this purity test. Gary Johnson is way better than most elected politicians. I appreciate Gary giving an honest statement here and I appreciate the fact that he's looking at the issue from both sides.

Now, I support Ron Paul, but I'm certainly not going to disparage anyone who has disagreements. I think we all must understand that with liberty, comes responsibility. And there are bound to be different lines for each individual as to how much of each they would like.

If we continue with this purity test of insinuating that anyone who disagrees with us is a statist, then we have no hope of regaining any liberty. The goal is to attract those that are interested in liberty and unite them. I think this kind of thing is harmful to our cause.

Yea, I wasn't really using this as a purity test. I like GJ a lot and he would probably be a great president if he could get elected. But, I found this and thought it was interesting. Not everything posted about GJ is negative.

Meatwasp
05-27-2011, 03:22 PM
No, they can always work some place where the employer(property owner) doesn't allow smoking.

A man with a lot of sense

jmdrake
05-27-2011, 03:39 PM
Whatever folks. Have your little spat about an issue that only hurts Ron and that nobody with a lick of sense cares about. (I don't know anyone dumb enough to want to open a whites only restaurant in 2011). The issue the federal government had already overstepped its bounds to control intrastate commerce decades before the CRA. Focus on that and RP gains grounds. Focus on the CRA and he seems like an anachronism.

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 03:42 PM
Whatever folks. Have your little spat about an issue that only hurts Ron and that nobody with a lick of sense cares about. (I don't know anyone dumb enough to want to open a whites only restaurant in 2011).

Yeah, I don't know anyone dumb enough to want to say racist things in 2011. Let's stop defending the first amendment.

aspiringconstitutionalist
05-27-2011, 10:43 PM
Johnson does not support a federal smoking ban. He just rambles occasionally while playing devil's advocate, and unfortunately did not finish this thought before he was interrupted with a new question.

aspiringconstitutionalist
05-27-2011, 10:55 PM
Gary Johnson had 8 years to free New Mexico. New Mexico is no freer than any other State. I doubt he would achieve better results at the federal level unless perhaps he was in the Senate.

Gary also faced a very statist state legislature, where 2/3 of legislators were Democrats, and the 1/3 of the legislators who were Republicans were mostly big-government Republicans. Governors can't unilaterally slash government. Only the legislature can pass bills slashing government, and Governors can sign them into law. Governors can, however, using the veto pen, put the brakes on big government and prevent new big government legislation from coming into law. Gov. Johnson did just that -- in fact, he vetoed more bills than all the other 49 Governors in the country at that time combined. But he also did achieve a lot of positive results -- he got 14 tax cuts through the legislature, he was able to cut the size of state government by 1200 employees by managing attrition, when he left office he was one of only four Governors in the country who balanced their state budgets, he got significant welfare reform through the legislature, and he got entitlement reform through the legislature that cut state Medicaid spending by 25%. Also, his advocacy on issues like ending the War On Drugs shifted New Mexican opinions significantly, according to polls before and after Gov. Johnson began his anti-Drug War crusade. You might not think New Mexico is a libertarian paradise, but if you could see New Mexico after 8 years under any of the other gubernatorial candidates, compared to New Mexico after 8 years of Gov. Gary Johnson, I can guarantee you'd be able to see a VAST difference in terms of freedom and prosperity.

Furthermore, criticising Gov. Johnson for not having any success getting through to the legislature doesn't really fly as a way of promoting Ron Paul instead, who has spent decades in Congress being relegated to a dusty corner. Even in the height of his recent popularity, Ron Paul hasn't even been able to get a basic audit of the Fed implemented yet. I can't really think of any significant legislation that Paul has gotten passed or defeated. This isn't to knock Ron Paul -- it's just to point out how retarded it is to criticise Johnson for the same thing (especially since Johnson actually DOES have a handful of policy victories under his belt).

Travlyr
05-28-2011, 06:23 AM
Gary also faced a very statist state legislature, where 2/3 of legislators were Democrats, and the 1/3 of the legislators who were Republicans were mostly big-government Republicans. Governors can't unilaterally slash government. Only the legislature can pass bills slashing government, and Governors can sign them into law. Governors can, however, using the veto pen, put the brakes on big government and prevent new big government legislation from coming into law. Gov. Johnson did just that -- in fact, he vetoed more bills than all the other 49 Governors in the country at that time combined. But he also did achieve a lot of positive results -- he got 14 tax cuts through the legislature, he was able to cut the size of state government by 1200 employees by managing attrition, when he left office he was one of only four Governors in the country who balanced their state budgets, he got significant welfare reform through the legislature, and he got entitlement reform through the legislature that cut state Medicaid spending by 25%. Also, his advocacy on issues like ending the War On Drugs shifted New Mexican opinions significantly, according to polls before and after Gov. Johnson began his anti-Drug War crusade. You might not think New Mexico is a libertarian paradise, but if you could see New Mexico after 8 years under any of the other gubernatorial candidates, compared to New Mexico after 8 years of Gov. Gary Johnson, I can guarantee you'd be able to see a VAST difference in terms of freedom and prosperity.

Furthermore, criticising Gov. Johnson for not having any success getting through to the legislature doesn't really fly as a way of promoting Ron Paul instead, who has spent decades in Congress being relegated to a dusty corner. Even in the height of his recent popularity, Ron Paul hasn't even been able to get a basic audit of the Fed implemented yet. I can't really think of any significant legislation that Paul has gotten passed or defeated. This isn't to knock Ron Paul -- it's just to point out how retarded it is to criticise Johnson for the same thing (especially since Johnson actually DOES have a handful of policy victories under his belt).

Waa ... Waa ... Bullshit.

Ron Paul is making a difference for the liberty movement around the entire world!

Dr. Paul is making that difference because he is a principled man.

The 'Round House' in New Mexico is just as corrupt today as the City of Chicago ever was. Johnson's failure to deliver lasting change in New Mexico is not a plus for him. The reason for his failure is because he is not consistent in his beliefs and not principled in his study. He would be much more effective for the liberty movement if he would just realize that we have to End The Fed before we can end the corruption.

Gary Johnson wants to be president. We don't need another president who will poll the people to find out which way the wind is blowing.

Gary Johnson should read what Ron Paul writes and support his candidacy ... not try and take supporters away from him. We need all the votes we can get in the primaries.

There is nothing retarded about pointing to the truth.

We need a principled man with a consistent message... and that man is Ron Paul 2012!

jmdrake
05-28-2011, 06:31 AM
Yeah, I don't know anyone dumb enough to want to say racist things in 2011. Let's stop defending the first amendment.

Well using your silly analogy, it would be like the first amendment was already gone and the only thing you were fighting for was the right to say racist things instead of standing up for the first amendment. But you're too locked into your position to see that. The federal government had already taken the power to tell private business what to do under FDR. Win that fight and you've actually restored property rights at the federal level without looking racist yourself. Repeal the CRA and the feds still have the power to plant drugs on your business and seize it, tell you what plants you can and can't grow and how much and heap all sorts of abuses on you. Oh but you can exclude blacks as your being abused.

aspiringconstitutionalist
05-28-2011, 08:57 AM
Waa ... Waa ... Bullshit.

Ron Paul is making a difference for the liberty movement around the entire world!

Dr. Paul is making that difference because he is a principled man.

The 'Round House' in New Mexico is just as corrupt today as the City of Chicago ever was. Johnson's failure to deliver lasting change in New Mexico is not a plus for him. The reason for his failure is because he is not consistent in his beliefs and not principled in his study. He would be much more effective for the liberty movement if he would just realize that we have to End The Fed before we can end the corruption.

Gary Johnson wants to be president. We don't need another president who will poll the people to find out which way the wind is blowing.

Gary Johnson should read what Ron Paul writes and support his candidacy ... not try and take supporters away from him. We need all the votes we can get in the primaries.

There is nothing retarded about pointing to the truth.

We need a principled man with a consistent message... and that man is Ron Paul 2012!

Wow. Way to not respond to anything I said. Try re-reading my post and turning your brain in the on position.

And PS, Johnson made the case for abolishing the Fed on the Hannity Show last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpFjDVGY_ug

Wren
05-28-2011, 09:05 AM
And PS, Johnson made the case for abolishing the Fed on the Hannity Show last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpFjDVGY_ug

Not really. He said if a bill of that sort came up to him, he would sign it, but he would not pursue the FED as his main priority.

Travlyr
05-28-2011, 09:11 AM
Wow. Way to not respond to anything I said. Try re-reading my post and turning your brain in the on position.

And PS, Johnson made the case for abolishing the Fed on the Hannity Show last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpFjDVGY_ug

Dude, you are not going to get liberty, peace, and prosperity until you end the counterfeiting cabal of central bankers. Gary Johnson is not leading that fight.

My brain is on. Why don't you try to learn the truth and stop with the ad hominem attacks.

ThyGivaOfRep
05-28-2011, 11:38 AM
why so many GJ apologists?

Travlyr
05-28-2011, 11:43 AM
why so many GJ apologists?

Shrugs: I don't think they understand liberty ... that's all I can come up with.