PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle on the issues: how their positions compare




JohnM
07-27-2016, 05:05 AM
This blog post is a pretty detailed look at where Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle compare, based on their answers to "I Side With"



In the 2008 presidential election, Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. In doing so, he effectively endorsed Baldwin's running mate, Darrell Castle, as the man to be President of the United States if something happened to Baldwin.

This year, the Constitution Party have nominated Castle as its presidential candidate, and Castle has claimed that he is more libertarian than Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's candidate. Is he?

On the one hand, when asked in a YouTube video about books he would recommend, the suggestions that he comes out with are all quite acceptable by libertarian standards. The first three are Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island, and The Thousand Year War by Richard J Maybury. So that's Austrian economics, opposition to central banking, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

On the other hand, Cody Quirk believes that Castle is definitely not more libertarian than Gary Johnson, and gives reasons. I'm not convinced by Quirk's arguments.

But, to be honest, the answer one gives is really going to be based on what exactly one means by "libertarian". Gary Johnson has his understanding of libertarianism, Darrell Castle has his, Cody Quirk has his, I have mine, and you probably have yours.
In an attempt to answer the question "Is Darrell Castle really more libertarian than Gary Johnson", I went to "I Side With", and looked at their answers to the policy questions that were asked, and tried to assess which of the two gave more libertarian answers.
Here are the answers they gave.

more at

http://themarmaladesandwich.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/is-darrell-castle-more-libertarian-than.html

Suzanimal
07-27-2016, 05:36 AM
That was pretty cool. Thanks!


Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun?
No
No, only for criminals and the mentally ill

I would've given Castle a point here.


Do you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

No, it surrenders U.S. sovereignty to international bureaucrats, corporations, and foreign governments none of which are accountable to U.S. citizens
No

I'm not sure Johnson's a solid no on that.


Asked about Trump's challenge this week to Clinton on whether she would be willing to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal on her first day in office, Johnson said if he were president, he'd sign the deal into action based on his advisers' recommendations.

"I'm being told that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would, in fact, advance free trade, and so I would support that document," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/03/politics/libertarian-gary-johnson-cnn-state-of-the-union-interview/

euphemia
07-27-2016, 06:34 AM
:)good morning everyone:)

Origanalist
07-27-2016, 06:47 AM
:)good morning everyone:)

Good morning.

Origanalist
07-27-2016, 06:49 AM
This blog post is a pretty detailed look at where Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle compare, based on their answers to "I Side With"




more at

http://themarmaladesandwich.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/is-darrell-castle-more-libertarian-than.html

I'm not seeing much of a contest here personally. Castle wins hands down.

fedupinmo
07-27-2016, 06:51 AM
Good article. I am proud to say I voted for Baldwin/Castle in 2008, and feel Castle is a better choice than Johnson.
The author should learn more about combat rolls though... being British he should know role/roll and how to use them.

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 06:58 AM
I'm not seeing much of a contest here personally. Castle wins hands down.

yeah, and the few things he dinged castle for, were things that I would give him a +1 for; but im not a Libertarian. besides, since GJ is against sticking to an ideology to govern, all somebody would have to do is convince him that the benefits out weigh the costs and he'd flipflop on all his good answers.

helmuth_hubener
07-27-2016, 08:19 AM
learn more about combat rolls

Hard tack?

euphemia
07-27-2016, 08:24 AM
Yes, the spelling obscures the meaning just a bit.

One thing people might not know is that Darrell Castle was in the USMC for about four years.

LatinsforPaul
07-27-2016, 08:48 AM
Castle is more liberty minded than Johnson. But the margin in difference is much narrower then back in 2008 when I voted for Baldwin over Barr. I will be voting for the Libertarian Party this time around solely because they are on the ballot on all 50 states and I will be hoping to get their numbers up to get more exposure for the liberty movement. There is no arguing that Castle is better than Johnson.

Natural Citizen
07-27-2016, 08:50 AM
I'm not seeing much of a contest here personally. Castle wins hands down.

Yep. Clearly. Castle is far more principled.

jllundqu
07-27-2016, 10:28 AM
I like the Constitution Party except for the fact that they are 100% Christian. The exclusivity of such a stance flies in the face of the very document they claim to uphold.

From the Party Platform:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

Sorry, but if you claim to uphold the 1st amendment (IE separation of church and state) and you have this in your party's preamble.... you will never even get off the ground. They are a non-starter for me.

jllundqu
07-27-2016, 10:35 AM
Hell just look at their position on pornography... WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE IT!



We call on all levels of government to protect and promote that which is truly free speech while vigorously defending and enforcing laws that protect us from the proliferation of the pornography and sexually oriented business industries because they are proven to be toxic to community standards, lower property values and increase crime.

While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that government plays a vital role in protecting all citizens, particularly our most vulnerable, women and children, from exploitation.

Because people are too dumb to be free to choose for themselves.... lmao

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 11:06 AM
From the Party Platform:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

Sorry, but if you claim to uphold the 1st amendment (IE separation of church and state) and you have this in your party's preamble.... you will never even get off the ground. They are a non-starter for me.

Exactly what part of that quote has anything to do with the 1st amendment or separation of church and state? Nothing that I can see. I'm not a Christian and it doesn't bother me in the least.

jllundqu
07-27-2016, 11:13 AM
Exactly what part of that quote has anything to do with the 1st amendment or separation of church and state? Nothing that I can see. I'm not a Christian and it doesn't bother me in the least.

Suit yourself.

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 11:28 AM
Suit yourself.

So basically, it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment or separation of church and state and you were just using your right to freedom of speech to spout off?

William Tell
07-27-2016, 11:30 AM
Hell just look at their position on pornography... WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE IT!



Because people are too dumb to be free to choose for themselves.... lmao

Castle doesn't want the feds involved in stuff like that though, he's liberty minded. The party doesn't speak for him anymore than the GOP speaks for Ron Paul.

jllundqu
07-27-2016, 11:31 AM
So basically, it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment or separation of church and state and you were just using your right to freedom of speech to spout off?

I'm stating that it is ironic that a party that claims to revere a wholly secular (deist?) document (Constitution) is overtly and exclusively Christian... I would think the "Constitution" party might take its cues from the Constitution itself, and not the bible.

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 11:40 AM
I'm stating that it is ironic that a party that claims to revere a wholly secular (deist?) document (Constitution) is overtly and exclusively Christian... I would think the "Constitution" party might take its cues from the Constitution itself, and not the bible.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people would disagree with your claims about the constitution. I don't find it to be exclusively Christian either. And besides all that, it says nothing about enforcing or mandating an official government ordained religion. It is simply a private organization making a statement of belief and harms nobody.

jllundqu
07-27-2016, 11:44 AM
I'm pretty sure a lot of people would disagree with your claims about the constitution. I don't find it to be exclusively Christian either. And besides all that, it says nothing about enforcing or mandating an official government ordained religion. It is simply a private organization making a statement of belief and harms nobody.

Again I disagree. From their platform:


The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations

I don't want a party in power that will make law based on the bible.

helmuth_hubener
07-27-2016, 11:46 AM
Because people are too dumb to be free to choose for themselves.... lmao

Many people are indeed not intelligent enough to make good long-term choices for themselves.

A long, long time ago, smart people recognized this. They realized that stupid people exist. This was one of the smartest realizations they had ever made, by the way. And so they decided that they would create elaborate, pervasive social systems to pressure, cajole, harass, and pidgeon-hole the stupid people into not making decisions quite so catastrophically stupid, at least on major life decisions. They cut off the most disastrously stupid decisions from consideration, took them off the table.

Now most of this consisted of parenting systems, and other familial means. Then there was community inclusion and approval vs. ostracism and run-out-of-town. Finally overarching cultural values, spread in literature, commerce, and art, forming a common language and bond. Lastly, yes, there was some attempt to modify behavior via the brute force of the state. But this last was, and is, largely ineffective. It is an impotent solution that traditional people are now turning to in desperation because the other methods are crumbling. But it's impotent. It does not have the power to turn the tide. It does not have the power to do much of anything.

But the general idea of attempting to control stupid people's behavior is sound. It is called: Civilization.

jllundqu
07-27-2016, 11:49 AM
Many people are indeed not intelligent enough to make good long-term choices for themselves.

A long, long time ago, smart people recognized this. They realized that stupid people exist. This was one of the smartest realizations they had ever made, by the way. And so they decided that they would create elaborate, pervasive social systems to pressure, cajole, harass, and pidgeon-hole the stupid people into not making decisions quite so catastrophically stupid, at least on major life decisions. They cut off the most disastrously stupid decisions from consideration, took them off the table.

Now most of this consisted of parenting systems, and other familial means. Then there was community inclusion and approval vs. ostracism and run-out-of-town. Finally overarching cultural values, spread in literature, commerce, and art, forming a common language and bond. Lastly, yes, there was some attempt to modify behavior via the brute force of the state. But this last was, and is, largely ineffective. It is an impotent solution that traditional people are now turning to in desperation because the other methods are crumbling. But it's impotent. It does not have the power to turn the tide. It does not have the power to do much of anything.

But the general idea of attempting to control stupid people's behavior is sound. It is called: Civilization.

I 100% percent agree with everything you wrote. Culture, family, community, religion... these are the things a people should use to influence individual behavior. NOT the State. That road only leads to misery.

dannno
07-27-2016, 12:08 PM
Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?
Castle: Yes, no corporation should be immune from the possibility that their product after being introduced into public commerce was defective, etc. and caused harm
GJ: No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence 1


Should the U.S. close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
Castle: No because it is now too late as the prisoners have been there so long that they are now too dangerous to release into the world
GJ: Yes 3
Castle's position seems to be to be very strange, and rather unprincipled.



Wtf.. that's pretty interesting to hear.

Anyway, ya it was actually pretty close - 30 - 35 - and quite a few of the points Castle got were from giving a principled libertarian reason along with the answer when Gary Johnson gave a pragmatic reason along with the same answer - so essentially they would have the same policies on these issues.

Not sure that it is worth a Castle vote when he won't be on all the ballots and has no chance of really doing anything.

I'm also concerned that Castle might be a bit more of a socon that he lets on.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 12:21 PM
Two things: there are a lot of unbelievers in the Constitution party. They don't turn anyone away.

The other thing is that pragmatism and principles are not the same thing. Principle leads to a consistent conclusion. This would describe Castle very well. Pragmatism is going to be what works today then something different tomorrow of that's what works. This would be Johnson. Not Libertarian.

helmuth_hubener
07-27-2016, 12:50 PM
I 100% percent agree with everything you wrote. Culture, family, community, religion... these are the things a people should use to influence individual behavior. NOT the State. That road only leads to misery.

And I with thee. :)

kahless
07-27-2016, 01:20 PM
If I was going to go the 3rd party route this cycle I normally would be looking to the Constitution Party due to their platform, particularly immigration. For those of us that do not know him, trying to figure out where Daryl Castle stands however is like pulling teeth. How hard would it have been for him or one of his people to put up a list of issues on his campaign website. I said this before when he first started running and you would think by now they would have had that altogether.

However the more I search and browse his various site the more I like and he does seem on the surface close to my beliefs on a number of issues. But I am not going to listen to a bunch of long videos of his radio show or whatever is to figure out where he stands. Because of that lack of simple effort of putting up issues on his website and links to his radio show, it leads me to believe he is not a serious candidate and just trying to broaden exposure for his radio show.

As far as Gary Johnson, I could never vote for him due to his position on immigration which is bad enough as is it is now. It would be far worse under an open borders Johnson Presidency. He is not pro-life and as discussed here before does not respect private property rights which does not make him much of a libertarian.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 01:27 PM
Castle is more liberty minded than Johnson. But the margin in difference is much narrower then back in 2008 when I voted for Baldwin over Barr. I will be voting for the Libertarian Party this time around solely because they are on the ballot on all 50 states and I will be hoping to get their numbers up to get more exposure for the liberty movement. There is no arguing that Castle is better than Johnson.

Perhaps you can help the Constitution Party gain ballot access in your state. Send an email and see what you can do.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 01:29 PM
I'm also concerned that Castle might be a bit more of a socon that he lets on.

He is likely very socially conservative in the way he lives. So am I. That doesn't mean we, or the government, should try to limit your freedom to live differently.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 02:06 PM
They're very similar and both highly libertarian.

Here are the key disagreements from a libertarian perspective:


Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide?


C: No

J: Yes, but only after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice

+1 Gary


Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs?


C: Yes, any business should be able to deny service for any reason

J: No, all customers deserve to be treated equally

+1 Castle


Should health insurance providers be required to offer free birth control?


C: No

J: Yes

+1 Castle


Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

C: No

J: Yes

+1 Castle


Should “gender identity” be added to anti-discrimination laws?


C: No

J: Yes

+1 Castle


Should the U.S. close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?


C: No because it is now too late as the prisoners have been there so long that they are now too dangerous to release into the world

J: Yes

+1 Gary


Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy?


C: I support the right of workers to collectively bargain but I oppose public service unions

J: Hurt

+1 Gary

Coercive labor unions are immoral and destructive, whether in the private or public sector.


Should local law enforcement be allowed to detain illegal immigrants for minor crimes and transfer them to federal immigration authorities?


C: Yes

J: No, only if they are convicted of a violent crime

+1 Gary


Should the U.S. increase restrictions on its current border security policy?


C: Yes

J: No, make it easier for immigrants to access temporary work visa

+1 Gary


Should the government increase or decrease the amount of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers?

C: Decrease

J: Increase, our economy relies on businesses hiring the highest skilled workers at the lowest cost

+1 Gary


Should Muslim immigrants be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists?


C: Yes

J: No, banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional

+1 Gary


Should working illegal immigrants be given temporary amnesty?


C: No

J: Yes, create a simple path to citizenship for immigrants with no criminal record

+1 Gary


Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security?


C: No

J: Yes, but I would prefer to privatize it instead

+1 Gary


Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?


C: Yes, no corporation should be immune from the possibility that their product after being introduced into public commerce was defective, etc. and caused harm

J: No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence

+1 Gary


Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use?


C: Yes, as permitted by the Constitution when the seizure is necessary for public use and when fair market value is paid to the property owner

J: No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

+1 Gary


Do you support the legalization of Marijuana?


C: I support decriminalization not legalization

J: Yes, and legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana instead of criminalizing it

+1 Gary

By my count, that's Gary 12, Castle 4

Either is a reasonable choice for a libertarian to support.

I'm supporting Johnson primarily because he's a more viable candidate.

...that he's marginally more libertarian is just icing on the cake.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 02:12 PM
Thanks for taking a look, r3volution 3.0. I hope you can see why some liberty thinkers do not appreciate Johnson's views as much as we do Castle's. Really, thanks for taking a look.

Ender
07-27-2016, 02:30 PM
They're very similar and both highly libertarian.

Here are the key disagreements from a libertarian perspective:

By my count, that's Gary 12, Castle 4

Either is a reasonable choice for a libertarian to support.

I'm supporting Johnson primarily because he's a more viable candidate.

...that he's marginally more libertarian is just icing on the cake.

Agree.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 02:48 PM
I am very thankful that you all are taking an honest look here. We don't all agree that the Constitution calls for open immigration. I think citizenship is not something to be taken lightly.

If we take immigration off the table (theoretically), how far apart are we on the rest of it?

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 02:50 PM
Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?
C: Yes, no corporation should be immune from the possibility that their product after being introduced into public commerce was defective, etc. and caused harm
J: No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence

+1 Gary


huh? so you want the government to limit who can and why they can be sued? Castle sides with Ron Paul on this issue. I don't think your position is more libertarian.



Do you support the legalization of Marijuana?

C: I support decriminalization not legalization
J: Yes, and legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana instead of criminalizing it

+1 Gary

How is taxing and regulating more libertarian than decriminalizing?

JohnM
07-27-2016, 03:08 PM
I like the Constitution Party except for the fact that they are 100% Christian. The exclusivity of such a stance flies in the face of the very document they claim to uphold.

From the Party Platform:


Sorry, but if you claim to uphold the 1st amendment (IE separation of church and state) and you have this in your party's preamble.... you will never even get off the ground. They are a non-starter for me.

Yeah, I find it really strange that if you look at the Constitution Party platform, it sounds very Christian in a "Christian Right" sort of way. And yet if you listen to what Darrell Castle actually says about the issues, he sounds pretty similar to Ron Paul.

As a Christian myself, I have three comments about that.

1) The way the Constitution Party sounds very Christian doesn't appeal to me today, but it would have appealed to me 20 years ago. What changed my outlook? I discovered Ron Paul, and through him, libertarianism, in 2007.

2)
I don't want a party in power that will make law based on the bible.

What I want is a candidate who will make laws based on the Bible - on what it really teaches about what laws we should have - not on what some idiots think it says about what laws we should have. :) And, in my opinion, libertarianism is pretty close to what one gets if one applies the teaching of the Bible to the questions of government.

3) What I find interesting is that when I look at the Constitution Party, it chooses a candidate who is much more libertarian than one would expect based simply on reading the party's platform. Whereas when I look at the Libertarian Party, I see a party that chooses candidates that are much less libertarian than one would expect based on its name. I do wonder if the Constitution Party's adherence to Christianity actually helps keep them more principled than they might otherwise be.

69360
07-27-2016, 03:09 PM
I'm sure Castle and the CP are fine. I don't have anything bad to say about them. But Johnson and the LP are getting real traction and polling as high as 13%. This is a BFD and it just makes sense to forget about your nuanced pet issues and go with the LP.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 03:12 PM
I am very thankful that you all are taking an honest look here. We don't all agree that the Constitution calls for open immigration. I think citizenship is not something to be taken lightly.

If we take immigration off the table (theoretically), how far apart are we on the rest of it?

Immigration's not a minor issue. Castle's proposed restrictions would greatly harm millions and millions of innocent people.

Anyway, here's a summary of the differences.

Johnson's deviations from libertarianism:
-wants to extend Civil Rights Act to gays, forcing businesses to serve them as they are already forced to serve blacks
-wants to keep funding Planned Parenthood
-wants insurers to be required to offer birth control

Castle's deviations:
-wants to restrict immigration
-wants to restrict trade
-supports coercive labor unions
-opposes cutting social security
-opposes drug legalization
-wants to hold firearm manufacturers liable for crimes committed with their products
-opposes closing Gitmo
-supports eminent domain
-supports banning pornography (or at least his party platform does)
-supports banning gambling (or at least his party platform does)

Everyone prioritizes the issues differently, but for me Castle's deviations are much more serious than Johnson's.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 03:16 PM
huh? so you want the government to limit who can and why they can be sued? Castle sides with Ron Paul on this issue. I don't think your position is more libertarian.

No no, the issue is whether firearms manufacturers should be held liable for crimes committed with their products.

That is not libertarian (manufacturers should not be held liable for misuse of their products, only for defects).

The anti-gun lobby has been pushing this for decades, since it would in effect bankrupt the gun industry.


How is taxing and regulating more libertarian than decriminalizing?

"Decriminalize" means reduce the penalties; drugs would still be illegal and one would still be penalized for using/selling them.

Granted Johnson's position is not ideal either, but it's better.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 03:30 PM
r3v, I have heard Darrell Castle in person. His personal positions are a little different than the official party platform. Party platforms are somewhat malleable in that the membership determines what they are. The Constitution Party attracts extremes on both ends. You might want to investigate that a little more where you live. It may be they are looking for an influx of membership, and you could have a way bigger influence there if you can tolerate the large numbers of Christians that follow this party. I kind of think the Libertarian Party's refusal to find some issues on which they agree has been their fatal flaw. I don't think the Christians in the Constitution Party are willing to abandon their convictions, but I think they would be open to a different focus if they have sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile. These people believe in the foundational principles in the Constitution, and they see how much their own liberties have been lost. I would consider myself to be in that number, and I can work with people who are willing to work with me. Do you see anything in there you can work with?

Specifically, what Castle said about drugs is that we should not be punishing people for crimes whose only victims are themselves. I heard that myself. As a squeaky clean Christian, it kind of rubs me the wrong way, but I can see the harm to society in general, as we are taking people away from jobs and families and warehousing them in prisons. I can see how our society is less safe with more laws. Are you willing to walk just a little bit toward a Castle position?

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 03:33 PM
No no, the issue is whether firearms manufacturers should be held liable for crimes committed with their products.

That is not libertarian (manufacturers should not be held liable for misuse of their products, only for defects).

The anti-gun lobby has been pushing this for decades, since it would in effect bankrupt the gun industry.

No, that was not the question. The question was:
"Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers? "

If you answer NO, then you want to limit who can be sued and why. If you answer yes, then you are allowing the lawsuit, whether or not they should be held liable is not relevant. As I noted, Ron PAul and DC agree on this issue, it is one of the reasons Dr. PAul was dinged by the NRA in his rating.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 03:35 PM
If the LP didn't exist, and I were looking for a third party, I'd join the CP without hesitation.

But the LP does exist, is more strictly libertarian, and is much larger and better organized.

So, no, if and when I decided to leave the GOP, I'll be going LP, not CP.

I think it's premature to be thinking about leaving the GOP though.

For now, I would advise all libertarian Republicans to vote LP this November but stay in the GOP, pending further developments.

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 03:37 PM
How is taxing and regulating more libertarian than decriminalizing?
"Decriminalize" means reduce the penalties; drugs would still be illegal and one would still be penalized for using/selling them.

Granted Johnson's position is not ideal either, but it's better.

That is what it means to you; it doesn't mean that it has to remain illegal or have any penalties at all. It means to me that there are no penalites involved. I guess we would need to see what DCs definition is.

William Tell
07-27-2016, 03:37 PM
r3v, you are wrong about Castle's positions on gambling, and other social issues. He has given some more detailed responses to policy questions such as drugs elsewhere.

I view the drug war as a total failure and would stop it immediately. The United States certainly has a right to determine what crosses its borders but in general drug policy should be on the state level. I personally favor decriminalization of drugs.

This next question ties in with drug policy. Do you see a role for the federal government in regulating and/or prohibiting things such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships or any other activities made by consenting adults?

No I really don’t. The states are free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread of pandemic disease or something of that nature.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?497441-Darrell-Castle-Says-He%92s-More-Libertarian-Than-Gary-Johnson

I think ending the entire drug war (Castle's position) sounds more libertarian than just legalizing Marijuana by itself.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 03:39 PM
If you answer NO, then you want to limit who can be sued and why.

Yes, and that's what I'm proposing.

Anyone filing suit against a company for producing the weapon which someone else used to harm them should have their suit thrown out.

If Ron took the opposite position, saying that such frivolous suits should be allowed to go to trial, he was wrong.

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 03:43 PM
Yes, and that's what I'm proposing.

Anyone filing suit against a company for producing the weapon which someone else used to harm them should have their suit thrown out.

If Ron took the opposite position, saying that such frivolous suits should be allowed to go to trial, he was wrong.

No, you are still mistaking the position. Having the suit thrown out is still a judiciary decision and you are still allowing the person to sue. What has been proposed is passing a law preventing them from being able to sue and that is NOT a libertarian position.

LatinsforPaul
07-27-2016, 03:45 PM
I'm sure Castle and the CP are fine. I don't have anything bad to say about them. But Johnson and the LP are getting real traction and polling as high as 13%. This is a BFD and it just makes sense to forget about your nuanced pet issues and go with the LP.

Agree 100%. If Castle and the Constitution Party were on all 50 state ballots and polling as high as 13%, I would have no issue pulling the lever for Castle in my state, Florida. But since it's Johnson and the LP are the ones polling as high as 13% and on every state's ballot, I will be voting for Johnson.

William Tell
07-27-2016, 03:50 PM
-opposes cutting social security

Where did he say that?. In the OP he just said "No" to raising the retirement age. Retirement age has nothing to do with cutting or increasing, changing the age is just kicking the can down the road.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 03:52 PM
That is what it means to you; it doesn't mean that it has to remain illegal or have any penalties at all. It means to me that there are no penalites involved. I guess we would need to see what DCs definition is.

AFAIK, neither of the candidates have released detailed plans about it, so we can only speculate.

But "decriminalization" as the term is normally used means a reduction in penalties, often substituting fines for prison sentences. This is certainly an improvement, but people are still being penalized for a non-aggressive act, and (importantly) the black market with all its pernicious effects (turf wars between cartels, etc) would continue to exist. Legalization eliminates all of the penalties and kills off the black market. Even with some taxes and regulations on the newly legalized industry, this is superior to mere decriminalization IMO.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 03:54 PM
I have not actively participated in the GOP since 2008. I have seen the corruption at the county and state levels first hand, and I don't want to be part of that, no matter how much I think of Ron Paul.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 03:55 PM
Where did he say that?. In the OP he just said "No" to raising the retirement age. Retirement age has nothing to do with cutting or increasing, changing the age is just kicking the can down the road.

Raising the retirement age would reduce the cost to the taxpayer over the long-term. That's mathematical fact Will.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 03:59 PM
No, you are still mistaking the position. Having the suit thrown out is still a judiciary decision and you are still allowing the person to sue. What has been proposed is passing a law preventing them from being able to sue and that is NOT a libertarian position.

I don't know what distinction you're making or why it matters.

Bottom line: businesses should not be liable for the misuse of their products.

Suits to that effect should be disallowed, tossed out, whatever you want to call it.

William Tell
07-27-2016, 04:01 PM
Raising the retirement age would reduce the cost to the taxpayer over the long-term. That's mathematical fact Will.

So that tells you Castle is opposed to any cutting of social security?

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 04:03 PM
r3v, you are wrong about Castle's positions on gambling, and other social issues.

I was referring to the party platform, which does call for prohibition of gambling and pornography.


I think ending the entire drug war (Castle's position) sounds more libertarian than just legalizing Marijuana by itself.

He's only calling for decriminalization, not legalization, see above.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 04:04 PM
So that tells you Castle is opposed to any cutting of social security?

He was asked whether he favored cutting SS by raising the age. He said no.

https://media.giphy.com/media/13NUOwOLq0NJug/giphy.gif

If you have any evidence that he favors cutting it some other way, let's have it.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 04:04 PM
So that tells you Castle is opposed to any cutting of social security?

I have heard him speak about this. He says "we" made a commitment to people and takes money from people based on that commitment. I don't necessarily agree, but I would sure like for the government to stop confiscating my money and give me the chance to invest it on my own.

William Tell
07-27-2016, 04:06 PM
I was referring to the party platform, which does call for prohibition of gambling and pornography.



And I showed you he disagrees with the party. So there's no reason to act like his position is a mystery now. Party does not = candidate, we all know that.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 04:08 PM
I have heard him speak about this. He says "we" made a commitment to people and takes money from people based on that commitment. I don't necessarily agree, but I would sure like for the government to stop confiscating my money and give me the chance to invest it on my own.

If that's his true position, that's a major problem.

It's pretty tough to be a fiscal conservative when $1 trillion of the budget is off the table.

...if the same logic applies to medicare, make than $1.5 trillion.

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 04:09 PM
And I showed you he disagrees with the party. So there's no reason to act like his position is a mystery now. Party does not = candidate, we all know that.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

His party holds those unlibertarian positions, he does not.

Understood

William Tell
07-27-2016, 04:11 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you.

His party holds those unlibertarian positions, he does not.

Understood Then why do you list them as deviations?

William Tell
07-27-2016, 04:13 PM
I have heard him speak about this. He says "we" made a commitment to people and takes money from people based on that commitment. I don't necessarily agree, but I would sure like for the government to stop confiscating my money and give me the chance to invest it on my own.

Thanks for sharing, I certainly don't agree either. Do you know if he supports young people opting out like RP does?

r3volution 3.0
07-27-2016, 04:17 PM
Then why do you list them as deviations?

This is how I listed them.


Castle's deviations:
-wants to restrict immigration
-wants to restrict trade
-supports coercive labor unions
-opposes cutting social security
-opposes drug legalization
-wants to hold firearm manufacturers liable for crimes committed with their products
-opposes closing Gitmo
-supports eminent domain
-supports banning pornography (or at least his party platform does)
-supports banning gambling (or at least his party platform does)

When I wrote that, I was unaware that he had repudiated those planks of party's platform.

euphemia
07-27-2016, 04:18 PM
If that's his true position, that's a major problem.

It's pretty tough to be a fiscal conservative when $1 trillion of the budget is off the table.

...if the same logic applies to medicare, make than $1.5 trillion.

I am fully with you on SS. If the government stops taking my money, they can do what they want and let me invest for my own retirement, which isn't so many years away.

Castle is a very principled man. Everything he says is based on principles of liberty and the Constitution. I am just glad you are at least listening and making an evalutation on that point.

William Tell
07-27-2016, 04:23 PM
This is how I listed them.



When I wrote that, I was unaware that he had repudiated those planks of party's platform. Yeah, every time Castle vs Johnson is discussed gambling, prostitution, and porn come up.

specsaregood
07-27-2016, 05:37 PM
Yeah, every time Castle vs Johnson is discussed gambling, prostitution, and porn come up.
The masses crave their circuses.

kahless
07-27-2016, 05:57 PM
Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs?

J: No, all customers deserve to be treated equally

Should health insurance providers be required to offer free birth control?

J: Yes

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

J: Yes



These are not small issues and are huge for a real libertarian and any Conservative to get past. If Gary Johnson posted here with these beliefs he would be attacked and likely banned from the forum for being damaging to the sites mission. It is mind blowing some here are so willing to overlook GJ's views simply because he is running as a Libertarian and when some here cannot overlook the views of other members in the forum that are far less statist.

Origanalist
07-27-2016, 11:35 PM
This is how I listed them.



When I wrote that, I was unaware that he had repudiated those planks of party's platform.

I have to call bullshit on that, this isn't the first time we have been down this road.

Anti-Neocon
07-28-2016, 01:21 AM
I could care less about who is more "libertarian". I don't vote for the more libertarian candidate, I cast my vote in the direction that best advances the cause of liberty. And no, they aren't necessarily the same.

If anything is to get me away from Johnson, it's his stance on the TPP, because the only thing he focused on was whether or not it "advanced free trade".
The anti-Internet parts of the TPP are the scariest:
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

helmuth_hubener
07-28-2016, 08:15 AM
I could care less about who is more "libertarian". I don't vote for the more libertarian candidate, I cast my vote in the direction that best advances the cause of liberty. And no, they aren't necessarily the same.

A very, very wise point. Some have not reached this level yet.

r3volution 3.0
07-28-2016, 11:39 AM
I have to call bullshit on that, this isn't the first time we have been down this road.

Since the issue was first raised, people have claimed that he disagreed with those planks of the platform.

I've asked for and (until now) never received any evidence of it.

euphemia
07-30-2016, 06:05 PM
Yeah, every time Castle vs Johnson is discussed gambling, prostitution, and porn come up.

When it really should be about TPP, NAFTA, religious freedom, and right-to-life issues.

helmuth_hubener
07-30-2016, 08:01 PM
Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
Yeah, every time Castle vs Johnson is discussed gambling, prostitution, and porn come up.When it really should be about TPP, NAFTA, religious freedom, and right-to-life issues.

And thus we see, left vs. right really is a thing. Even among libertarians. Who knew!

euphemia
07-30-2016, 08:39 PM
Some people think religious freedom and the right to life are actually in the Constitution.

Regarding trade: It is the the best interests of the United States to negotiate from a position of strength.

William Tell
08-21-2016, 08:56 PM
He was asked whether he favored cutting SS by raising the age. He said no.

https://media.giphy.com/media/13NUOwOLq0NJug/giphy.gif

If you have any evidence that he favors cutting it some other way, let's have it.

He recognizes it is an unconstitutional program. He wants to pay out to the older people, and phase it out by letting the younger ones move into private retirement. The same thing Ron Paul proposed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkc_nVCfnFk

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2016, 09:53 AM
He recognizes it is an unconstitutional program. He wants to pay out to the older people, and phase it out by letting the younger ones move into private retirement. The same thing Ron Paul proposed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkc_nVCfnFk

Fair enough

Though I don't understand why he'd be opposed to raising the retirement age, that could part of phasing it out.

e.g. anyone under 40 gets nothing, 40-50 face a gradually rising retirement age, 50+ get full benefits

In any event, yes, it is now established that Castle wants to cut SS, just in a different way.

JohnM
08-23-2016, 03:07 AM
Thanks for posting that, William Tell.

I was going to add to your reputation, but apparently I need to spread some around before giving it to you again.