Ron Paul and Gary Johnson: differences?

[CanadaBoy]

hey ya'll

I have a room mate who I've been about politics with since the 08 election (He an Obama supporter and me a Paul supporter)
This election cycle he is supporting Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination (still an Obama supporter)
I tell him that Johnson and Paul are pretty much the same candidate, but he still won't acknowledge Paul.

I was wondering if there are any issues/principles where Paul and Johnson differ in opinion?

[fisharmor]

Abortion.
Paul is actively looking for ways to stop it.
Doesn't seem to be on Johnson's radar, and when it has been, he's been pretty soft on it.

[sailingaway]

They are completely different, even how they address an issue is different. Ron goes from the Constitution, I'm not sure I've ever heard Gary mention the Constitution. Gary talks about cost benefit approaches, supports NAFTA, which Ron thinks is a violation of sovereignty. COme to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard Gary Johnson mention sovereignty, either. They'd both spend less. Gary believes in 'humanitarian wars'.... Gary really doesn't stand up against challenges by pundits that I've seen.

I tried to like Johnson when I thought Ron wouldn't be running, but I just couldn't get into him, personally.

[CaptUSA]

Johnson is a utilitarian first, but understands the moral reasons for liberty as well.

Ron Paul works from morals first, but understands the utility.

The nice thing about liberty is that it is the only state of existence where moral right and maximum utility coincide.

[sailingaway]

Abortion.
Paul is actively looking for ways to stop it.
Doesn't seem to be on Johnson's radar, and when it has been, he's been pretty soft on it.

Johnson is pro choice, as I understand it.

[G-Wohl]

hey ya'll

I have a room mate who I've been about politics with since the 08 election (He an Obama supporter and me a Paul supporter)
This election cycle he is supporting Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination (still an Obama supporter)
I tell him that Johnson and Paul are pretty much the same candidate, but he still won't acknowledge Paul.

I was wondering if there are any issues/principles where Paul and Johnson differ in opinion?

With respect to issues, both candidates offer the same opinions on the big ones. In fact, in many respects, they offer the same general platform. The key difference, however, is in ideology. Johnson's beliefs stem from a much more rational and moral perspective, whereas Ron Paul's are more religious and populist in nature. To that degree, it is easy to see why Johnson is pro choice and fully supports stem cell research on a moral - but not political - ground. He is more Objectivist in nature, whereas Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian.

The way in which these two differ most significantly is in backgrounds. Johnson was governor of New Mexico, and was wildly popular in his state. Paul has been in the House his whole life, and in medicine before that.

To be quite frank, Gary Johnson is also a much more likable and presentable candidate, too. He is being pushed out like Ron Paul was in 2008 - because the real danger posed to the establishment is a very likable, engaging, professional politician with small government capitalist principles... not the old, frail, aging Ron Paul who often cannot deliver his message effectively.

[sailingaway]

Johnson is a utilitarian first, but understands the moral reasons for liberty as well.

Ron Paul works from morals first, but understands the utility.

The nice thing about liberty is that it is the only state of existence where moral right and maximum utility coincide.

I'd really like to see something where Johnson discusses the morals of it. That is a huge gaping hole in him, from my perspective.

[pipewerKz]

I don't think Johnson takes the philosophy of liberty to far enough. He wants to tinker around the edges and seems a little weak on some issues like foreign policy.

I'd hate to say this about Johnson because of the way it was said to Paul in 2008 but, Johnson can't win. He is to the GOP what Ron was in 2008. I hope Johnson ends up supporting Paul for the nomination and his supporters come this way.

You need to introduce him to the austrian economics side of Ron Paul to make him understand a little bit more. Free markets, voluntary trade of goods/services is the keystone of liberty.

[sailingaway]

With respect to issues, both candidates offer the same opinions on the big ones. In fact, in many respects, they offer the same general platform. The key difference, however, is in ideology. Johnson's beliefs stem from a much more rational and moral perspective, whereas Ron Paul's are more religious and populist in nature. To that degree, it is easy to see why Johnson is pro choice and fully supports stem cell research on a moral - but not political - ground. He is more Objectivist in nature, whereas Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian.

The way in which these two differ most significantly is in backgrounds. Johnson was governor of New Mexico, and was wildly popular in his state. Paul has been in the House his whole life, and in medicine before that.

To be quite frank, Gary Johnson is also a much more likable and presentable candidate, too. He is being pushed out like Ron Paul was in 2008 - because the real danger posed to the establishment is a very likable, engaging, professional politician with small government capitalist principles... not the old, frail, aging Ron Paul who often cannot deliver his message effectively.

^^ bs big time. Look up the South Carolina debate when Johnson was in with Ron. Look at any of the Campaign for Liberty event youtubes for Johnson. Ron is a much better debater and speaker imho, and yes, I realize that is not his strong point. People saying stuff like the above made me think Johnson would be very different than I find him to be.

[AlexG]

Didn't Johnson support Obama's deployment of troops into Uganda? Johnson aint Paul and he will never hold the libertarian vote!

[Rothbardian Girl]

To clarify on the foreign policy difference that was mentioned, Gary tends to support so-called "humanitarian wars". He supported the action in Uganda, for example. Not sure about Libya, as that was originally justified under "humanitarian" pretenses as well. I don't think he is a horrible candidate, but I am not sure I could support him because of his stance on the war issue. Paul should be greatly preferable, IMO - try directing your friend towards links where Ron Paul speaks out against corporatism. His recent interview could be a very powerful tool in getting liberals to acknowledge him as the superior choice over Obama.

[Dreamofunity]

Johnson also supports(ed?) Gitmo.

[klamath]

^^ bs big time. Look up the South Carolina debate when Johnson was in with Ron. Look at any of the Campaign for Liberty event youtubes for Johnson. Ron is a much better debater and speaker imho, and yes, I realize that is not his strong point. People saying stuff like the above made me think Johnson would be very different than I find him to be.
This guy hates RP with a passion as he is a frothing at the mouth anti ANTI religionist.

[Invi]

From what I have gathered, GJ is a pro-choice atheist who would not close Guantanamo.
I haven't really looked into the differences since I tend to agree with Paul already. I could be wrong on the atheism. It doesn't bother me, as one myself, but from what I understand, pro-choice + atheism = almost nil chance of nomination.

If your friend agrees more with GJ than RP, good for him, I guess.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Johnson is also an advocate of the Fair Tax as his desired method of taxation.

There's a lot to like about Gary, but the unFair Tax is a disaster, his frail foreign policy is a concern, and his Gitmo stance is misguided.

[G-Wohl]

This guy hates RP with a passion

And you're a three-headed snail whose father was a turtle. See, we can all make completely nonsense claims! It's rather easy - a lot easier than speaking the truth.


as he is a ... anti ANTI religionist.

Wait, what? I'm against anti-religion? I forgot why it was so hard to take you seriously even for a moment.

[specsaregood]

Johnson promotes the path of fascism.

[low preference guy]

Johnson's beliefs stem from a much more rational and moral perspective, whereas Ron Paul's are more religious and populist in nature.

Are you aware that Johnson supports humanitarian wars, like that of Uganda, and smoking bans?

[klamath]

And you're a three-headed snail whose father was a turtle. See, we can all make completely nonsense claims! It's rather easy - a lot easier than speaking the truth.



Wait, what? I'm against anti-religion? I forgot why it was so hard to take you seriously even for a moment.
I never take you serious. Sometimes it is fun to poke the troll.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Some differences between Paul and Johnson:

Johnson proposes balancing the budget in 2013, whereas Paul proposes a balanced budget after 3 years. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson supports the idea of using American troops to stop serious genocides (like Uganda, but not Libya), whereas Paul does not. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson does not believe in government prohibition of abortion, whereas Paul does. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul believe America would be better if all drugs were legalized, Paul actively advocates the legalization of all drugs, while Johnson wants to take it step by step and just legalize marijuana and decriminalize hard drugs first, and then legalize hard drugs after public opinion moves further. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson supports open immigration and no government fence on imaginary borders, whereas Paul believes in "securing the borders". (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul are Austrian economics adherents and understand economics 99% better than every other presidential candidate, Paul has a much better and more thorough grasp on the ins and outs of Austrian economic theory than Johnson does. (I like Paul more on this point)
Johnson comes at libertarianism from a consequentialist standpoint (liberty is good because it works), while Paul comes at libertarianism from a moralist standpoint (liberty is good because there's some cosmic scroll floating out there somewhere that says it's good). (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson believes NAFTA is an overall good bill that overall does support free trade and would support it because it's a net positive even though it's not perfect, whereas Paul would vote down NAFTA even if there were just one tiny unconstitutional clause in it. (I'm actually with Paul on this one--free trade can be done right, abiding by the limits of the Consitution, and we don't have to accept imperfections like NAFTA)
Johnson is a younger guy who has been a CEO and Governor, whereas Paul is an older guy who been a Congressperson and doctor. (Doesn't matter to me personally either way, but I think Johnson would, historically speaking, be a better fit for a successful presidential nominee)
Both Paul and Johnson would abolish the Fed, but Paul makes it a big campaign issue. (I'm with Paul here)
Johnson uses his bully pulpit as a presidential candidate to stand up against bigotry against LGBT individuals and other persecuted minorities in America, whereas Paul is more silent on these issues and sometimes (to my great frustration) even plays for homophobes' votes, by supporting things like DOMA. (I'm with Johnson here)

[G-Wohl]

Are you aware that Johnson supports humanitarian wars, like that of Uganda, and smoking bans?

No, I am not aware of Johnson's support for "humanitarian wars" although I am not entirely sure what you mean by that phrase. If you mean that he supports the altruistic deployment and utilization of our military, then I would say that I have never seen him make such remarks. Everything I've seen from him has advocated a withdrawal of troops from around the world, focusing on defense spending rather than military spending.

With respect to Uganda ... unlike almost every other act of war on the part of the US over the past fifty years, the actions taken in Uganda were authorized by the Congress and signed by the President. Quoting Johnson, he has said that he is "in the camp that doesn’t want to stand by and watch genocide go down. I’ve been asked many times, ‘What’s your example of a genocide? Don’t we ostensibly go in for those kinds of reasons and then find ourselves enmeshed in a war that never ends?'”

As for smoking bans, I have never seen a quote where he made this claim, and I could not find one upon researching. If he did say he supported smoking bans, I'm sure he only stated this was OK on the State level. Even so, we have no idea whether he supports this on a mere legal level (which would mean he would have a poor understanding of the 14th amendment - an issue Dr. Paul suffers from as well) or a moral level (which would be a reason for concern). I have never seen Gary Johnson advocate a policy which collided with the protection of property rights.

Nevertheless, even if both of these claims were 100% true as you flatly stated them, these are certainly far smaller issues than Dr. Paul's "We the People" act and his staunch pro-life advocacy.

[klamath]

Some differences between Paul and Johnson:

Johnson proposes balancing the budget in 2013, whereas Paul proposes a balanced budget after 3 years. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson supports the idea of using American troops to stop serious genocides (like Uganda, but not Libya), whereas Paul does not. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson does not believe in government prohibition of abortion, whereas Paul does. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul believe America would be better if all drugs were legalized, Paul actively advocates the legalization of all drugs, while Johnson wants to take it step by step and just legalize marijuana and decriminalize hard drugs first, and then legalize hard drugs after public opinion moves further. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson supports open immigration and no government fence on imaginary borders, whereas Paul believes in "securing the borders". (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul are Austrian economics adherents and understand economics 99% better than every other presidential candidate, Paul has a much better and more thorough grasp on the ins and outs of Austrian economic theory than Johnson does. (I like Paul more on this point)
Johnson comes at libertarianism from a consequentialist standpoint (liberty is good because it works), while Paul comes at libertarianism from a moralist standpoint (liberty is good because there's some cosmic scroll floating out there somewhere that says it's good). (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson believes NAFTA is an overall good bill that overall does support free trade and would support it because it's a net positive even though it's not perfect, whereas Paul would vote down NAFTA even if there were just one tiny unconstitutional clause in it. (I'm actually with Paul on this one--free trade can be done right, abiding by the limits of the Consitution, and we don't have to accept imperfections like NAFTA)
Johnson is a younger guy who has been a CEO and Governor, whereas Paul is an older guy who been a Congressperson and doctor. (Doesn't matter to me personally either way, but I think Johnson would, historically speaking, be a better fit for a successful presidential nominee)
Both Paul and Johnson would abolish the Fed, but Paul makes it a big campaign issue. (I'm with Paul here)
Johnson uses his bully pulpit as a presidential candidate to stand up against bigotry against LGBT individuals and other persecuted minorities in America, whereas Paul is more silent on these issues and sometimes (to my great frustration) even plays for homophobes' votes, by supporting things like DOMA. (I'm with Johnson here)
Thank you for laying it out so clearly. I will never vote for GJ now.

[qh4dotcom]

Some differences between Paul and Johnson:

Johnson proposes balancing the budget in 2013, whereas Paul proposes a balanced budget after 3 years. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson supports the idea of using American troops to stop serious genocides (like Uganda, but not Libya), whereas Paul does not. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson does not believe in government prohibition of abortion, whereas Paul does. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul believe America would be better if all drugs were legalized, Paul actively advocates the legalization of all drugs, while Johnson wants to take it step by step and just legalize marijuana and decriminalize hard drugs first, and then legalize hard drugs after public opinion moves further. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson supports open immigration and no government fence on imaginary borders, whereas Paul believes in "securing the borders". (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul are Austrian economics adherents and understand economics 99% better than every other presidential candidate, Paul has a much better and more thorough grasp on the ins and outs of Austrian economic theory than Johnson does. (I like Paul more on this point)
Johnson comes at libertarianism from a consequentialist standpoint (liberty is good because it works), while Paul comes at libertarianism from a moralist standpoint (liberty is good because there's some cosmic scroll floating out there somewhere that says it's good). (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson believes NAFTA is an overall good bill that overall does support free trade and would support it because it's a net positive even though it's not perfect, whereas Paul would vote down NAFTA even if there were just one tiny unconstitutional clause in it. (I'm actually with Paul on this one--free trade can be done right, abiding by the limits of the Consitution, and we don't have to accept imperfections like NAFTA)
Johnson is a younger guy who has been a CEO and Governor, whereas Paul is an older guy who been a Congressperson and doctor. (Doesn't matter to me personally either way, but I think Johnson would, historically speaking, be a better fit for a successful presidential nominee)
Both Paul and Johnson would abolish the Fed, but Paul makes it a big campaign issue. (I'm with Paul here)
Johnson uses his bully pulpit as a presidential candidate to stand up against bigotry against LGBT individuals and other persecuted minorities in America, whereas Paul is more silent on these issues and sometimes (to my great frustration) even plays for homophobes' votes, by supporting things like DOMA. (I'm with Johnson here)

Great post

[jmdrake]

The biggest difference? Ron is in the double digits whereas Gary Johnson is around 2%. While I disagree with Gary Johnson on certain issues, I could support him if he became the nominee, which is something I can't say for any other candidate besides Ron Paul.

[Jingles]

Gary Johnson seems more Chicago school to me while Ron Paul is Austrian school. Gary Johnson tends to focus on utilitarian aspects of liberty, but hardly brings up the moral case. I feel the moral case is much more important for if you understand the principles of liberty all the cost benefit things just follow.

This is why I think Johnson isn't very good with interviews that I have seen for the most part. He doesn't state the moral reasons first, and then go into all the details of the cost benefit approach. The moral position is important because the reasons why we support this in the first place are moral.

[sailingaway]

The biggest difference? Ron is in the double digits whereas Gary Johnson is around 2%. While I disagree with Gary Johnson on certain issues, I could support him if he became the nominee, which is something I can't say for any other candidate besides Ron Paul.

Ron wants to balance the budget immediately. Ron Paul stands up across the board to pressure, and I have seen Gary back down even before news pundits, which doesn't bode well for what would happen in office. Ron has a comprehensive plan that actually WOULD balance the budget in three years, and is pushing it. I feel personally certain that if GJ polled better and had a chance, he'd not be promising to balance the budget in one year.

[Elwar]

I like them both. And I mean no disrespect to Gov. Johnson but Gary Johnson is like a high school freshmen just learning. While Ron Paul is the professor that has developed half of the theory that he teaches.

Would love to have Gary Johnson as president. But would love it more if Ron Paul is.

In the end. Let the guy support Johnson (unless you live in NH). Let him know that Ron Paul supports most of what Johnson supports and that there are minimal differences compared to the rest of the crowd. Johnson will probably see how he does in NH and drop out to support Ron Paul.

It would have been better if he was in the debates though.

[idiom]

The nice thing about liberty is that it is the only state of existence where moral right and maximum utility coincide.

For given values of moral right and utility.

[milo10]

Some differences between Paul and Johnson:

Johnson proposes balancing the budget in 2013, whereas Paul proposes a balanced budget after 3 years. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson supports the idea of using American troops to stop serious genocides (like Uganda, but not Libya), whereas Paul does not. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson does not believe in government prohibition of abortion, whereas Paul does. (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul believe America would be better if all drugs were legalized, Paul actively advocates the legalization of all drugs, while Johnson wants to take it step by step and just legalize marijuana and decriminalize hard drugs first, and then legalize hard drugs after public opinion moves further. (I'm on Paul's side here)
Johnson supports open immigration and no government fence on imaginary borders, whereas Paul believes in "securing the borders". (I'm on Johnson's side here)
While both Johnson and Paul are Austrian economics adherents and understand economics 99% better than every other presidential candidate, Paul has a much better and more thorough grasp on the ins and outs of Austrian economic theory than Johnson does. (I like Paul more on this point)
Johnson comes at libertarianism from a consequentialist standpoint (liberty is good because it works), while Paul comes at libertarianism from a moralist standpoint (liberty is good because there's some cosmic scroll floating out there somewhere that says it's good). (I'm on Johnson's side here)
Johnson believes NAFTA is an overall good bill that overall does support free trade and would support it because it's a net positive even though it's not perfect, whereas Paul would vote down NAFTA even if there were just one tiny unconstitutional clause in it. (I'm actually with Paul on this one--free trade can be done right, abiding by the limits of the Consitution, and we don't have to accept imperfections like NAFTA)
Johnson is a younger guy who has been a CEO and Governor, whereas Paul is an older guy who been a Congressperson and doctor. (Doesn't matter to me personally either way, but I think Johnson would, historically speaking, be a better fit for a successful presidential nominee)
Both Paul and Johnson would abolish the Fed, but Paul makes it a big campaign issue. (I'm with Paul here)
Johnson uses his bully pulpit as a presidential candidate to stand up against bigotry against LGBT individuals and other persecuted minorities in America, whereas Paul is more silent on these issues and sometimes (to my great frustration) even plays for homophobes' votes, by supporting things like DOMA. (I'm with Johnson here)

Not only an excellent post, but a kindred spirit. I agree with you on almost everything. :)

[CaptainAmerica]

Gary Johnson is really a Democrat.

[rambone]

Despite a few small issues, Johnson would do just fine, and would improve the country. I hope he runs again.

[rambone]

Also I haven't heard Johnson talk about shrinking the domestic Police State. Whereas Paul has been speaking against it for years.

I'm sure I could have missed it though.

[low preference guy]

Gary Johnson's troubling statements on the CRA of 1964 and smoking bans.


Q: What did you think of Rand Paul’s initial statements about the Civil Rights Act, that the government should not tell private businesses they can’t discriminate? That’s consistent with libertarian views, right? A: 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.

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 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?

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

Gary Johnson on humanitarian wars:


A dove in the mold of 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Johnson says, “I don't think that we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan.” But the extent of his non-interventionism isn’t quite clear. On one hand, he isn’t even sure if U.S. troops should have been stationed in Europe to confront the Soviets following World War II. “I don't think I have the expertise to be able to say that it was good or bad, it just seems to me that today, it doesn’t really seem warranted,” he says. Johnson also says Iran’s nuclear program isn’t a threat to the United States because the principle of “mutually assured destruction” would keep the Iranians from attacking.

On the other hand, Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?” he says. “Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.”

Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yes-gary-johnson-endorsed-humanitarian-war_522029.html)

[low preference guy]

Nevertheless, even if both of these claims were 100% true as you flatly stated them, these are certainly far smaller issues than Dr. Paul's "We the People" act and his staunch pro-life advocacy.

What's wrong with Federalism? Murder laws are handled at the state level. Why should the issue of abortion be any different? Are you opposed to Gary Johnson because he isn't proposing creating a world police to ensure that abortion is allowed everywhere?

Also, Gary Johnson's position is that Roe v. Wade should be repealed and while he was Governor he signed every piece of legislation restricting abortion that came to his desk.


Q: But you have supported legislation that requires parental consent and signed a ban on partial birth abortions.
A: I think the decision can be made at an earlier stage. That's why I don't support partial birth abortions. I realize it's a fine line, but I generally come down on a woman's right to decide.
Q: Do you disagree that parental consent is problematic for teenagers who can't talk to their parents?
A: I believe that parents ought to know. Where that can't occur, there needs to be a process in place, which we have in New Mexico.

[DavidK]

They are slightly similar in my eyes, but I'd still rather see Gary Johnson president over any of those other clowns IF not Ron Paul.