PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson: 'Religious freedom, as a category' is 'a black hole'




Suzanimal
07-29-2016, 01:13 PM
Video at link


PHILADELPHIA — At the Democratic National Committee I ran into Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and Libertarian Party nominee for president. Here's a transcript of our conversation, edited for clarity, and reorganized thematically.

—-ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY—-

Do you think New Mexico was right to fine the photographer for not photographing the gay wedding?

"Look. Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of."

Can the current federal RFRA be applied to protect things like the wedding photographer and the Little Sisters of the Poor?

"The problem is I don't think you can cut out a little chunk there. I think what you're going to end up doing is open up a plethora of discrimination that you never believed could exist. And it'll start with Muslims."

In a year when conservatives are being turned off by Donald Trump, do you worry that you're turning off conservatives who might come to the Libertarian Party?

"It's the right message, and I'm sideways with the Libertarian Party on this. My crystal ball is that you are going to get discriminated against by somebody because it's against their religion. Somehow you have offended their religion because you've walked in and you're denied service. You."

You think it's the federal government's job to prevent—

"Discrimination. Yes."

In all cases?

"Yes, yes, in all cases. Yes. And you're using an example that seems to go outside the bounds of common sense. But man, now you're back to public policy. And it's kind of like the death penalty. Do I favor the death penalty. Theoretically I do, but when you realize that there's a 4 percent error rate, you end up putting guilty people to death. I think this is analogous to hate crime. Convict me on the act of throwing a rock through somebody's window. But if you're going to convict me on my motivation for doing that, now you're back to religious freedom. I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back to Mormonism. Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead."

That doesn't seem like the distinction that a libertarian typically makes. Shooting is an initiation of force, versus deciding what ceremonies to participate in.

"Well, they bring out this issue, which I realize it has happened. But the objective here is to say that discrimination is not allowed for by business ...""I just see religious freedom, as a category, of just being a black hole."

—-ON ABORTION—-

Do you think the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion?

"The law of the land is Casey v. Planned Parenthood. I have no intention of changing the law, and Casey v. Planned Parenthood says, "you, woman, you have the right to have an abortion up to viability of the fetus." And the Supreme Court has defined viability of the fetus as being able to sustain the life of the fetus outside of the womb, even by artificial means. That is the law of the land."

Ron Paul's being pro-life and libertarian. You think he's mistaken.

"It would be like him saying I'm mistaken on religious freedom ... I'm not a social conservative. I really do believe in people being able to make choices."

Can you be a social conservative and a libertarian at the same time?

"Absolutely. I think there are plenty of libertarians that are socially conservative. Absolutely. It's just this notion of don't force it on me."

...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2598088

William Tell
07-29-2016, 01:16 PM
A "Libertarian" saying freedom is a black hole. Unbelievable.

CaptUSA
07-29-2016, 01:21 PM
I discriminate all the time. On the basis of everything. So does anyone with a brain. Discrimination is not a bad thing if done properly.

The idea that laws can prevent discrimination is ludicrous. Gary maintains the status quo here. Not good.

phill4paul
07-29-2016, 01:31 PM
SMDH.

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 01:59 PM
His conclusion on the issue is entirely wrong; businesses should not be forced to serve people they don't want to serve, for whatever reason.

But he's right that "religious freedom" is a "black hole." It could be used to justify anything.

The proper argument against forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes et al is based on property rights, not this nebulous "religious freedom."

lilymc
07-29-2016, 02:05 PM
Disgusting. He sounds just like a lefty... I'm not sure why anyone would think he's a true libertarian.

specsaregood
07-29-2016, 02:06 PM
So can we move articles about this douchebag out of the Liberty Campaigns subforum already?

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 02:08 PM
So can we move articles about this douchebag out of the Liberty Campaigns subforum already?

No, because - despite a few deviations such as this - he's the most libertarian candidate in the race by orders of magnitude.

specsaregood
07-29-2016, 02:12 PM
No, because - despite a few deviations such as this - he's the most libertarian candidate in the race by orders of magnitude.

this place has fallen so far. i'd vote for a flaming turd pile before I would ever vote for this clown.

erowe1
07-29-2016, 02:13 PM
He's right. Religion shouldn't be brought into it. People should be allowed to discriminate with their own property no matter what their motivation is.

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 02:17 PM
this place has fallen so far. i'd vote for a flaming turd pile before I would ever vote for this clown.

*shrug*

Do as you please.

Meanwhile, those of us who recognize "100 steps forward, 1 step back" as a net gain will vote Johnson.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 02:18 PM
No, because - despite a few deviations such as this - he's the most libertarian candidate in the race by orders of magnitude.

Gary Johnson rejects the primary supporting principle for Individual Liberty itself. I'm sorry, rev3. You're boy is yesterday's news. It happens. Is what it is.

An Individual is an Individual is an Individual. Period. No black holes. And the principles of Individual Liberty aren't accepted and rejected piece-meal. That isn't how it works. It's all or none.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 02:20 PM
Disgusting. He sounds just like a lefty... I'm not sure why anyone would think he's a true libertarian.

Cultural Marxist.

LibertyEagle
07-29-2016, 02:22 PM
No, because - despite a few deviations such as this - he's the most libertarian candidate in the race by orders of magnitude.

The designation of "liberty candidate" has nothing to do with picking which candidate is less evil than the other. The fact is that there are no liberty candidates in this race any longer.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 02:25 PM
this place has fallen so far. i'd vote for a flaming turd pile before I would ever vote for this clown.

Agreed.

Krugminator2
07-29-2016, 02:31 PM
*shrug*

Do as you please.

Meanwhile, those of us who recognize "100 steps forward, 1 step back" as a net gain will vote Johnson.

That interview I posted the other day wasn't just bad, it should be disqualifying unless he takes drastic steps to rectify it. I am a libertarian squish and here what some other libertarian squishes thought of Johnson's interview with Reason.

759052316213256192

758888085207658496

759071186621980673

It should say something when so many libertarian leaners like Carney, the guy who did the interview in the original post, or this guy http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/29/gary-johnson-is-still-terrible-on-religious-liberty/ think Johnson is just not getting it done.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 02:36 PM
The proper argument against forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes et al is based on property rights, not this nebulous "religious freedom."

Agreed. As I'd mentioned to Bryan in the Johnson Liberty Evaluation thread, theIndividual's right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

So, what does it tell you about Gary Johnson in terms of a "Liberty" candidate given that I've just provided you the most proper property rights argument you will receive here? I'll repeat that. The Individual's right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

Gary Johnson, by his admitted position rejects Man's right to Liberty itself. This is supported by, as you correctlty stated, Johnson's openly admitted position as it relates to the proper argument against forcing an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals at the end of a barrel of a government gun.

You lose, rev. It's just the reality of the situation. But we've been over this time and time again over the last week or so, you and I. I'm simply repeating the same thing to you now that I did then. And I'm as equally correct today as I was when I said it to you then.

You're certainly free to promote Johnson all day long. Just don't promote him in the Name of Liberty. He openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental and primary supporting principle. Consequently, he rejects Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

erowe1
07-29-2016, 02:42 PM
The designation of "liberty candidate" has nothing to do with picking which candidate is less evil than the other.

Sure it does. That's all we can ever do.

William Tell
07-29-2016, 02:46 PM
No, because - despite a few deviations such as this - he's the most libertarian candidate in the race by orders of magnitude.
No he is not.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 02:52 PM
His conclusion on the issue is entirely wrong; businesses should not be forced to serve people they don't want to serve, for whatever reason.

Agreed. Gary Johnsons position is entirely wrong on Liberty.

More precisely, more correctly spoken, the "issue", is that an Individual or a group of Individuals should not be forced to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals at the barrel of a government gun. And, again, the Individual's right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of his God-given unalienable rights, but of his right to Liberty itself.

End of thread as far as I'm concerned. Because I just summed it up fo real fo real. Later boys. I gotta go see about a girl. Maybe the last beautiful girl.

Tywysog Cymru
07-29-2016, 02:54 PM
Just because someone has an L next to their names doesn't mean they support liberty.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 03:01 PM
Just because someone has an L next to their names doesn't mean they support liberty.

Agreed. And given Gary Johnson's openly admitted rejection of property rights, it is patently true that it is demonstrable to have an L next to one's name, yet reject Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principle. Which, consequently, is an openly admitted rejection of the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

But yeah. I'm serious now. That was my last post in the thread. Heh. Dig a hole. That dog is dead.

Suzanimal
07-29-2016, 03:07 PM
Agreed. Gary Johnsons position is entitrely wrong on Liberty.

More precisely, more correctly spoken, the "issue", is that an Individual or a group of Individuals should not be forced to relinquish their prioperty to another Individual or to another group of Individuals at the barrel of a government gun. And, again, the Individual's right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

End of thread as far as I'm concerned. Because I just summed it up fo real fo real. Later boys. I gotta go see about a girl. Maybe the last beautiful girl.

What the hell are you doin'? Go see about the last beautiful girl.

puppetmaster
07-29-2016, 03:56 PM
He's right. Religion shouldn't be brought into it. People should be allowed to discriminate with their own property no matter what their motivation is. i agree

puppetmaster
07-29-2016, 03:58 PM
Sad Gary sad.

NewRightLibertarian
07-29-2016, 03:59 PM
Johnson/Weld will be the death of the liberty movement if libertarians are desperate and pathetic enough to rally around them.

JohnM
07-29-2016, 04:00 PM
His conclusion on the issue is entirely wrong; businesses should not be forced to serve people they don't want to serve, for whatever reason.

But he's right that "religious freedom" is a "black hole." It could be used to justify anything.

The proper argument against forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes et al is based on property rights, not this nebulous "religious freedom."

Property rights?

Or freedom of association?

Or both?

JohnM
07-29-2016, 04:01 PM
No he is not.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to William Tell again"

undergroundrr
07-29-2016, 04:49 PM
Gary Johnson is not going to say things socons want to hear. It's silly to keep waiting for it.

P3ter_Griffin
07-29-2016, 05:30 PM
Seems to me he has taken his position out of misunderstanding. Maybe we should look to clarify it for him?

Brett85
07-29-2016, 05:48 PM
No, because - despite a few deviations such as this - he's the most libertarian candidate in the race by orders of magnitude.

No, Darrell Castle is quite a bit more libertarian.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 05:57 PM
Seems to me he has taken his position out of misunderstanding.

Agreed. He likely doesn't know what the primary supporting principle for Individual Liberty actually is given that he openly rejects this most fundamental supporting principle in Liberty's very name.

So get with him on that. Teach him what it is and get back with us in 4 years. Ought to be a hoot.

euphemia
07-29-2016, 06:06 PM
This is a man who wants to place his hand on the Bible while a Supreme Court justice walks him through the oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." If he does not see religious freedom, as outlined in the Constitution, as one of the most fundamental liberties, then he is not fit to be president.

And let's just be honest. People who self-identify as pro-choice are really only pro-choice when the choice is abortion. They are never pro-choice when the choice is to use conception control at their own expense or otherwise be responsible in their behavior. In any speech at the DNC, the roars and applause were especially loud for abortion. I should have choked back the vomit to count the times they mentioned abortion in speeches. Killing a pre-born infant is the most discriminatory action there is. If Gary wants to bring the full force of government to bear on discrimination, he should consider whether he really dislikes discrimination, or if he really wants to discriminate when it is convenient for him.

Johnson has made himself very clear. There is now no question about what he thinks.

P3ter_Griffin
07-29-2016, 06:32 PM
Agreed. He likely doesn't know what the primary supporting principle for Individual Liberty actually is given that he openly rejects this most fundamental supporting principle in Liberty's very name.

So get with him on that. Teach him what it is and get back with us in 4 years. Ought to be a hoot.

I was thinking you could write it up, and I'll tweet it (and anyone else who wants to) to him everyday until he acknowledges that he has read it. ;)

Honestly if he thinks religious liberty means you can throw a rock through someone's window I don't know how hard it would be to get him pointed in a better direction.... even if not perfect. But with time? The debates haven't even started yet, now is the time to inform him if you desire him to be a better messenger of liberty.

euphemia
07-29-2016, 06:36 PM
The debates haven't even started yet, now is the time to inform him if you desire him to be a better messenger of liberty.

He can't be a messenger of liberty at all unless he starts believing in personal liberty.

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 07:19 PM
No, Darrell Castle is quite a bit more libertarian.

No, actually he isn't.

He has deviations and they're more serious than Gary's, such as his restrictionism.

Millions of people being kidnapped and transported across an imaginary line they crossed...

...having committed no crime, hurt no one, harmed nothing.

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 07:21 PM
Property rights?

Or freedom of association?

Same thing

euphemia
07-29-2016, 07:24 PM
Castle is more libertarian. Did you even know who he was before the recent discussions on this board?

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 07:28 PM
No he is not.

Guillaume, you aren't aware that Johnson is better on most key issues?

Bank bailouts? ---Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Socialized medicine? --Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Keynesian stimulus? --Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
PATRIOT Act --Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Libya War -- Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Iraq War -- Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.

Johnson has opposed all of those policies, Trumpllary has supported all of them.

Johnson is the same as the others?

...as I know you're an honest person, what say you?

Nighthawkeye
07-29-2016, 08:17 PM
I agree with most of the posters here that Johnson is wrong on this issue, and yes it should be looked at more from a property rights issue or freedom of association issue. Johnson is probably correct that Muslims would be hit hard and targeted a lot by this issue, I don't personally think blacks would see that much as the stink would hit the fan on anyone that put up a sign against blacks, but support for someone put up anti-muslim signs would be huge currently I think. But with that said I still think people and business should have a right to control their service how ever they see fit.

As for liberty aligned yeah Castle and Johnson are fairly close personally in my opinion, they are both light years better than Trump or Hillary. The difference for me is Castle is like 1 in a million chance to win, where I would put Johnson closer to 1 in 1000 chance, but neither is likely to win so for me its about which parties policies are more pro liberty and to me that is the Libertarian over the Constitution without a doubt, the Constitution parties platform is scary. If Castle had been the Libertarian nominee I would gladly vote for him, same way had peterson or mcafee been the nominee for em.

Nighthawkeye
07-29-2016, 08:19 PM
I think william tell was referring to castle which is a reasonable statement, obviously if he was thinking of Trump or Hillary it would not be.

erowe1
07-29-2016, 08:23 PM
No, actually he isn't.

He has deviations and they're more serious than Gary's, such as his restrictionism.

Millions of people being kidnapped and transported across an imaginary line they crossed...

...having committed no crime, hurt no one, harmed nothing.


I can understand favoring Johnson over Castle because he's the more credible candidate and the only one of the two with a real chance of making waves.

But as to which of them is more libertarian, it's Castle by a mile.

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 08:27 PM
I can understand favoring Johnson over Castle because he's the more credible candidate and the only one of the two with a real chance of making waves.

But as to which of them is more libertarian, it's Castle by a mile.

Castle is a protectionist, opposing the movement of both goods and people across imaginary lines in the desert.

...in comparison with which gay cakes fade into irrelevance IMO.

So...how so?

erowe1
07-29-2016, 08:30 PM
Castle is a protectionist, opposing the movement of both goods and people across imaginary lines in the desert.


I don't think the cake issue is the biggest one. It's not as big as free trade and immigration.

But being against trade agreements is better than being for them, regardless. Also, Castle is, as far as I can tell, a lot more serious about ending the Fed. He's also more whole-heartedly non-interventionist.

And on his issues list, nothing protectionist is even mentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if he has some protectionist tendencies, since that's typical of the CP, but it doesn't appear to be high on his agenda, and I'm not even sure if it's accurate.
http://castle2016.com/issues-list/

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 08:30 PM
Property rights?

Or freedom of association?

Or both?

The latter is an application of the former.

euphemia
07-29-2016, 08:30 PM
Not if you are denying me the right to manage my own property and my own faith. Gary Johnson believes the government should come force people, at gunpoint, to act in violation of their consciences because of a cake.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 08:41 PM
The latter is an application of the former.

Correct. Freedom of choice being embracing. Freedom is, of course, defined as Freedom from Government-over-Man here.

What's the former an application of?

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 08:42 PM
That interview I posted the other day wasn't just bad, it should be disqualifying unless he takes drastic steps to rectify it. I am a libertarian squish and here what some other libertarian squishes thought of Johnson's interview with Reason.

759052316213256192

758888085207658496

759071186621980673

It should say something when so many libertarian leaners like Carney, the guy who did the interview in the original post, or this guy http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/29/gary-johnson-is-still-terrible-on-religious-liberty/ think Johnson is just not getting it done.

I don't care.

...and have implicit contempt for all "libertarians" not supporting Johnson

...and also shrug in general indifference in your direction.

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 08:54 PM
But being against trade agreements is better than being for them, regardless.

Well, we'll have to diverge there..

Despite the "UN IS TAKING OVER OMG" retard brigade, lower tariffs are in fact good: and in accordance with libertarian principles.


Also, Castle is, as far as I can tell, a lot more serious about ending the Fed. He's also more whole-heartedly non-interventionist.

A. Why?

B. It doesn't matter anyway.

erowe1
07-29-2016, 09:02 PM
Well, we'll have to diverge there..

Despite the "UN IS TAKING OVER OMG" retard brigade, lower tariffs are in fact good: and in accordance with libertarian principles.


I'm all for lower tariffs. And I agree that in a cost benefit analysis of trade agreements, lower tariffs are decidedly on the benefit side. But there's a lot more to all these agreements than that.



A. Why?

B. It doesn't matter anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean here. But the question was whether or not Castle was more libertarian than Johnson, and being more anti-fed and more non-interventionist are definitely strong reasons for saying that Castle is more libertarian than Johnson.

phill4paul
07-29-2016, 09:06 PM
Also, Castle is, as far as I can tell, a lot more serious about ending the Fed. He's also more whole-heartedly non-interventionist.

A. Why?

B. It doesn't matter anyway.


A. This is a site is named after Ron Paul. Founded by his supporters and these were his positions.

B. If it doesn't matter then why comment? Why spend time here?

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 09:11 PM
I'm all for lower tariffs. And I agree that in a cost benefit analysis of trade agreements, lower tariffs are decidedly on the benefit side. But there's a lot more to all these agreements than that.

Yes, such as hyperbolic, nonsensical speculation.

...but, hey, Alex's got to sell his dickpills somehow.

OMG teh UN iz gunna take yur guns, buy shit on infowars.com...


I'm not sure what you mean here. But the question was whether or not Castle was more libertarian than Johnson, and being more anti-fed and more non-interventionist are definitely strong reasons for saying that Castle is more libertarian than Johnson.

The question was what evidence is there to suggest that Castle is more serious about ending the Fed or non-interventionism than Johnson?

And, secondly, why does it matter?

erowe1
07-29-2016, 09:19 PM
Yes, such as hyperbolic, nonsensical speculation.


That's pretty ridiculous.

These phonebook-sized agreements are not just about lowering tariffs, nor are they even primarily about lowering tariffs. Most of what they do involves coordinating of regulations, and this is pretty much always by way of making the countries with less strict regulations catch up with those with stricter ones.

erowe1
07-29-2016, 09:23 PM
The question was what evidence is there to suggest that Castle is more serious about ending the Fed or non-interventionism than Johnson?

And, secondly, why does it matter?

You should go back and re-read your own words, because you didn't ask that question.

It's clear by comparing both of their words on those issues, which in the case of Castle, we have in statements he's made repeatedly over many years.

It matters, because ending the Fed and noninterventionism are huge issues and tests of libertarianism. And again, the question was whether Castle was more libertarian than Johnson, so you can't just ignore them.

The way you're approaching this discussion is tantamount to admitting that you know Castle is actually the more libertarian of the two. It's like you just want to count whatever minor points might favor Johnson and ignore much weightier points that favor Castle.

dannno
07-29-2016, 09:25 PM
Seems to me he has taken his position out of misunderstanding. Maybe we should look to clarify it for him?

Well he certainly isn't thinking the situation through very thoroughly, I have to admit.

The example of the Christian photographer being forced to take photographs at a gay wedding is pretty extreme, he admits, it did happen, he admits, yet he is ok with it because slippery slope we might discriminate against Muslims (a religion that likes to execute gay people and is generally extremely unaccepting of other cultures and lifestyles).. Now, most likely the photographer will go to a wedding like any other wedding, it shouldn't be a problem imo (although in principle that isn't up to me to decide) - but let's take it to the extreme and say the gay wedding turned out to be more like a gay pride parade, a lot of gay men in risque clothing and such, You really want to force a Christian to take photos of not only what they consider immoral behavior on a macro level, but immodest dress and other immoral activity actually occurring at the wedding? That's pretty insane.. I mean, he says he doesn't want to force churches to marry gay people, but why force wedding photographers to be involved?

The thing that sucks, and this is why although I wish he was more principled I'm willing to put up with this stuff somewhat, is there really isn't a good answer to give if he wants to bring in Sanders supporters, which he is doing a pretty good job of doing. If he came out against the CRA almost nobody on the left would support him, he would lose half his support in the polls. So he is essentially taking the status quo position here. If he says it is ok with photographers to discriminate, why not cake bakers? Why not everybody? It might be right, but like he said it's a black-hole issue that will run his campaign into the ground.

phill4paul
07-29-2016, 09:35 PM
Supporting Johnson/Weld at this point is like supporting Trump/Pence or Hillary/Kaine. In my mind. I just can't do it.

Just like myself, oftentimes, Ron Paul was "a day late and a dollar short."

I can't begin to imagine the support he would recieve this cycle. :(

LatinsforPaul
07-29-2016, 09:56 PM
Supporting Johnson/Weld at this point is like supporting Trump/Pence or Hillary/Kaine. In my mind. I just can't do it.

Just like myself, oftentimes, Ron Paul was "a day late and a dollar short."

I can't begin to imagine the support he would recieve this cycle. :(

Really...

http://i.imgur.com/HFtFE3h.png

phill4paul
07-29-2016, 10:06 PM
Really...


Yeah, really. I remember when he ran against Ron in the Rep. primary. I didn't think he was worth a shit then, only a distraction from Ron, and I don't think he is worth a shit now. If you want to vote for him then go ahead. If Trump or Hillary supporters want to vote for them then go ahead.

I'm glad you found someone.

P3ter_Griffin
07-29-2016, 10:10 PM
Well he certainly isn't thinking the situation through very thoroughly, I have to admit.

The example of the Christian photographer being forced to take photographs at a gay wedding is pretty extreme, he admits, it did happen, he admits, yet he is ok with it because slippery slope we might discriminate against Muslims (a religion that likes to execute gay people and is generally extremely unaccepting of other cultures and lifestyles).. Now, most likely the photographer will go to a wedding like any other wedding, it shouldn't be a problem imo (although in principle that isn't up to me to decide) - but let's take it to the extreme and say the gay wedding turned out to be more like a gay pride parade, a lot of gay men in risque clothing and such, You really want to force a Christian to take photos of not only what they consider immoral behavior on a macro level, but immodest dress and other immoral activity actually occurring at the wedding? That's pretty insane.. I mean, he says he doesn't want to force churches to marry gay people, but why force wedding photographers to be involved?

The thing that sucks, and this is why although I wish he was more principled I'm willing to put up with this stuff somewhat, is there really isn't a good answer to give if he wants to bring in Sanders supporters, which he is doing a pretty good job of doing. If he came out against the CRA almost nobody on the left would support him, he would lose half his support in the polls. So he is essentially taking the status quo position here. If he says it is ok with photographers to discriminate, why not cake bakers? Why not everybody? It might be right, but like he said it's a black-hole issue that will run his campaign into the ground.

dannno, we have Christians on this board who advocate that killing gays is a responsibility of government. You understand there are different ways to interpret.... everything I suppose. But especially religious or philosophical texts. Why don't you lay out how you believe a Muslim is commanded to follow his religious scripture... and I'm not just saying link to some fucking video... so that a debate on the understanding you have outlined can commence, instead of taking these stupid ass jabs. I have laid out elsewhere a reasonable scriptural guideline which would suggest that Muslim individuals are capable of living peacefully amongst non-believers. And that is greatly supported by the fact that they do.

My opinion, if he can be convinced that he is wrong (talking Gary Johnson here), his best approach would be to say... to the effect of... that every individual should have full control over their property and who they provide their services to, but that it is an issue for a later administration to address should the American people to decide to continue the Libertarian approach, as there are enough problems to address to consume four years.

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 10:20 PM
You should go back and re-read your own words, because you didn't ask that question.

...






Castle is, as far as I can tell, a lot more serious about ending the Fed. He's also more whole-heartedly non-interventionist.A. Why?the question was whether or not Castle was more libertarian than Johnson, and being more anti-fed and more non-interventionist are definitely strong reasons for saying that Castle is more libertarian than Johnson.The question was what evidence is there to suggest that Castle is more serious about ending the Fed or non-interventionism than Johnson?You should go back and re-read your own words, because you didn't ask that question.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

If the people insist on committing electoral suicide, so be it.

What can I do?

LatinsforPaul
07-29-2016, 10:25 PM
Yeah, really. I remember when he ran against Ron in the Rep. primary. I didn't think he was worth a $#@! then, only a distraction from Ron, and I don't think he is worth a $#@! now. If you want to vote for him then go ahead. If Trump or Hillary supporters want to vote for them then go ahead.

I'm glad you found someone.

I understand your frustration. For POTUS this election, not voting, voting for Castle, or voting for Johnson, I believe is acceptable. Voting for Hillary or Trump would be a tragedy.

erowe1
07-29-2016, 10:29 PM
...



Anyway, it doesn't matter.

If the people insist on committing electoral suicide, so be it.

What can I do?

I can only assume that your purpose in providing all those quotes was to apologize and say I was right, that you never asked the question that you claimed in post 52 you had asked. Because that's just what those quotes show.

phill4paul
07-29-2016, 10:31 PM
I understand your frustration. For POTUS this election, not voting, voting for Castle, or voting for Johnson, I believe is acceptable. Voting for Hillary or Trump would be a tragedy.

I've written in Ron Paul the last two. My dad said he was just going to write in his name. I figure I'm gonna support him. At 86 and a "get off my lawn" kinda guy I figure Why not?

r3volution 3.0
07-29-2016, 10:37 PM
I can only assume that your purpose in providing all those quotes was to apologize and say I was right, that you never asked the question that you claimed in post 52 you had asked. Because that's just what those quotes show.

Sure, despite the fact that that's false, as is clear from the quoted posts, let's go with that..

As I keep emphasizing, it really doesn't matter.

/debate

undergroundrr
07-29-2016, 10:49 PM
My opinion, if he can be convinced that he is wrong (talking Gary Johnson here), his best approach would be to say... to the effect of... that every individual should have full control over their property and who they provide their services to, but that it is an issue for a later administration to address should the American people to decide to continue the Libertarian approach, as there are enough problems to address to consume four years.

That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes. I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle. He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity. I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months.

dannno
07-29-2016, 10:55 PM
dannno, we have Christians on this board who advocate that killing gays is a responsibility of government. You understand there are different ways to interpret.... everything I suppose. But especially religious or philosophical texts. Why don't you lay out how you believe a Muslim is commanded to follow his religious scripture... and I'm not just saying link to some fucking video... so that a debate on the understanding you have outlined can commence, instead of taking these stupid ass jabs. I have laid out elsewhere a reasonable scriptural guideline which would suggest that Muslim individuals are capable of living peacefully amongst non-believers. And that is greatly supported by the fact that they do.

My opinion, if he can be convinced that he is wrong (talking Gary Johnson here), his best approach would be to say... to the effect of... that every individual should have full control over their property and who they provide their services to, but that it is an issue for a later administration to address should the American people to decide to continue the Libertarian approach, as there are enough problems to address to consume four years.

The issue is that there are Islamic governments who execute gay people, that is pretty non-existent or at least very rare in Christian societies and from what we see with the Muslim immigrants in Europe there are some major problems - they are trying to force diversity on Europe by group of people who hate diversity.. And I am going by all of those questionnaire studies they did on Muslims in Europe, not just my opinion. You can look them up.

Now that said, you are absolutely correct - there have been many, MANY peaceful Muslim groups and countries who have allowed other cultures and religions to live among them peacefully. And as I argued in another thread that is fairly active on the topic right now, I think the OP is Trump Supporters or something, there has been a lot that the west has done to foment the negative attitudes that Muslims have today and we need to stop doing that. But we also have to look at the consequences of our actions responsibly, such as bringing people who we have angered into our country when we could be helping the refugees resettle in the Middle East for 1/10th of the cost, through say private charities.

puppetmaster
07-29-2016, 11:44 PM
That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes. I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle. He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity. I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months. you mean sell out? Libertarian means something different to me than what you have posted above.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2016, 11:55 PM
What we have here, it seems, with all of this hey, "my definition of Libertarianism is different than your definition of Libertarianism and because my definition of Libertarianism happens to be mine, then, it surely must be the correct and proper definition of Libertarianism because I say so and I don't care what you think" drama is a simple failure to wilfully recognize what Liberty is prior to debating who is the more Libertarian. So, let's define Liberty. Can we do that? We should likely consider doing that first.

Here is how I think Liberty is defined. And I'm certainly open for any corrections. Ready? Lets go....Liberty defined: Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equallty doing the same. It's pretty simple. Does that sound right? If so, then, whomever holds a policy or position that is consistent with that definition fully is most likely the true Libertarian. Policy does not define Liberty. Nor can it. Nor should it. Principles define Liberty.

Truthfully, I'd likely never trust a growing handful of friends here with any real responsibility when it comes to adult activism in Liberty where adult activism in Liberty may be needed. Some friends lack the correct temperament. And some friends aren't very responsible representatives of their cause.

P3ter_Griffin
07-30-2016, 12:12 AM
The issue is that there are Islamic governments who execute gay people, that is pretty non-existent or at least very rare in Christian societies and from what we see with the Muslim immigrants in Europe there are some major problems - they are trying to force diversity on Europe by group of people who hate diversity.. And I am going by all of those questionnaire studies they did on Muslims in Europe, not just my opinion. You can look them up.

Now that said, you are absolutely correct - there have been many, MANY peaceful Muslim groups and countries who have allowed other cultures and religions to live among them peacefully. And as I argued in another thread that is fairly active on the topic right now, I think the OP is Trump Supporters or something, there has been a lot that the west has done to foment the negative attitudes that Muslims have today and we need to stop doing that. But we also have to look at the consequences of our actions responsibly, such as bringing people who we have angered into our country when we could be helping the refugees resettle in the Middle East for 1/10th of the cost, through say private charities.

Yes, we at least don't discriminate on who we kill. ;) That is, if you are to believe we are a Christian society. But to the peaceful Muslim and the peaceful Christian, the government isn't a reflection of their religion, it is a group of rulers.

I read the other thread, along with many other of your posts. I know you are talking a 'pragmatic approach'. But I think the masterminds behind the pragmatism have slipped in information that is not valid to alter what the pragmatic approach is. And I'm not saying you have bitten. The state should absolutely not be in the refugee business, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, that is the principled position. While many others have gone full-blown 'Islam is not compatible with western culture, ban Islam'. And the comments like:


Muslims (a religion that likes to execute gay people and is generally extremely unaccepting of other cultures and lifestyles)

is a reinforcement for that.

From what I remember, the reason that the commandment to execute gays did not make it into the Quaran is because the commandment was only remember by one individual, who was a ruler who executed gays, and it took two individuals to remember a commandment to make it into the Quaran. But chopping off the hands of a thief seems legit.?

I'm not saying I want to become muslim or that anyone should necesarilly derive justice from the Quaran (don't know enough about it tbh), but that such claims, as you made, should be substantiated before they are tossed around on RPF. For the sanctity of truth. From what I remember Ron had to deal with a portion of his campaign who thought he should shift his positions from 'blowback' to 'they hate us for our freedom', yet he kept preaching blowback.

P3ter_Griffin
07-30-2016, 12:25 AM
That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes. I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle. He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity. I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months.

You and R3v will receive no hate from me for your thoughts and approach. I'm not super invested in candidates I'm just more enjoying the bigger picture. In 2012 my understanding of liberty was.... quite wrong you could probably say, my understanding of many things have grown since then so its just kind of enjoyable to check it out and laugh at how crazy it is. I do think though, because of Gary's nature, similar to Ron's, kind, friendly, unintimidating, he is the kind of guy to let the cat out of the bag and make an argument for strict property right adherence, and the justice and goodness in it. But at the same time... my understanding 'what people are okay with', is not really up to par. It may well sink his campaign no matter how eloquently he makes the argument. Either way, I'm just observing, talking out my butt. ;)

P3ter_Griffin
07-30-2016, 12:31 AM
What we have here, it seems, with all of this hey, "my definition of Libertarianism is different than your definition of Libertarianism and because my definition of Libertarianism happens to be mine, then, it surely must be the correct and proper definition of Libertarianism because I say so and I don't care what you think" drama is a simple failure to wilfully recognize what Liberty is prior to debating who is the more Libertarian. So, let's define Liberty. Can we do that? We should likely consider doing that first.

Here is how I think Liberty is defined. And I'm certainly open for any corrections. Ready? Lets go....Liberty defined: Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equallty doing the same. It's pretty simple. Does that sound right? If so, then, whomever holds a policy or position that is consistent with that definition fully is most likely the true Libertarian. Policy does not define Liberty. Nor can it. Nor should it. Principles define Liberty.

Truthfully, I'd likely never trust a growing handful of friends here with any real responsibility when it comes to adult activism in Liberty where adult activism in Liberty may be needed. Some friends lack the correct temperament. And some friends aren't very responsible representatives of their cause.

haha, I enjoy your posts, pops.

I think there are plenty of word combinations that could say the same thing but I'm just fine with the one you've chosen.

Occam's Banana
07-30-2016, 01:00 AM
That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes.

Exactly the same could be said of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

The only difference is that, unlike Johnson, one of those two is actually going to win.

(And I don't think I've ever encountered an electoral "strategy" based on openly disavowing and explicitly rejecting the need for "ANY" support from its own base - especially not in relation to "minor" parties. Oh, well ... *shrug* ... good luck with that, I guess ...)


I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle.

It would appear you have nothing to fear in this regard.

As far as I can tell, Johnson hasn't really got much to say about liberty per se to anyone at all (let alone you or me).

(But how this is supposed to redound to the benefit of libertarianism or the "mainstreaming" of liberty is beyond my ken ...)


He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity.

Liberty harshez teh feelz, and defending property rights is unreasonable (and maybe not even sane).

So let's sneer at those things as "code" and just abandon them to the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

(I mean, after all, if it will get us more votes this year, then "William Weld 2020" might be positioned to do even better! Ah! Be still my heart ...)


I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months.

If you're not going to proselytize, then what's the point?

Your congregation is never going to grow if you refuse to preach to unbelievers.

(And while sermonizing the "choir" may indeed be a pointless waste of time, that does not obviate the just-stated fact ...)

dannno
07-30-2016, 03:40 AM
From what I remember Ron had to deal with a portion of his campaign who thought he should shift his positions from 'blowback' to 'they hate us for our freedom', yet he kept preaching blowback.

Not me, he is absolutely correct. They hate us because we have been bombing them, supplying our allies with weapons and using intelligence operations to supersede their sovereignty. That message needn't get lost.

JohnM
07-30-2016, 04:23 AM
What Occam's Banana said.

I voted for GJ in 2012 despite knowing he did not even have a one in a million chance of winning. I voted according to what I believed. This time around, I can't vote for Johnson. Yeah, he has a lot of good points. But I could not publicly stand up and say I voted for him after the things he and Weld have said. Yeah, he's better than Trump or Hillary. But I believe that he falls far short of Castle. And in the real world, they have roughly the same chance of getting elected.

Furthermore, the fact that Johnson and Weld are running on a Libertarian ticket bothers me. If they called themselves "Independent" or "Third Party", that would be different. But the fact that they call themselves libertarian means that people (including many who I like and respect) will look at them and say "Well, if that's libertarianism, I am not interested." The redefining of libertarianism to mean " inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity" or "Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative" or anything anyone wants it to mean strikes me as problematical. Not only is it wrong and dishonest, it seems to me that in the long run it is politically disastrous and pragmatically stupid.

What Johnson and Weld are doing is good for Johnson and Weld. It isn't good for the cause of freedom. IMHO.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 09:43 AM
Lol. I'm amused at how many people are dismayed that libertarianism could be associated with (not defined by) "inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity." Which of those qualities is incompatible with libertarianism, and why would one find any of them undersireable? Until a staunch libertarian (which GJ is far, far from) can stand up in front of America and sincerely say "I feel your pain," there will be no true liberty advocates representing the American people in Clarksville City Hall let alone Washington DC.

I'll say it again since it seems to make people so mad - Gary Johnson does not need the vote of anybody on RPF. I posit that it would be best for him to avoid them like the plague. For grins, here's my guess how the general election votes of RPF active members will go -

trump - 35%
Johnson - 25%
Write-in/abstain - 35%
Hillary - 5%

erowe1
07-30-2016, 09:53 AM
Sure, despite the fact that that's false, as is clear from the quoted posts, let's go with that..


The quotes are there for anyone to read. You clearly never asked what you claimed in post 52 you had asked.

Natural Citizen
07-30-2016, 10:33 AM
haha, I enjoy your posts, pops.



Heh. Well. Thank You. I just happen to be in muh prime, though. :)

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 10:44 AM
Lets go....Liberty defined: Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equallty doing the same.

Wow, you talk like a Johnson supporter. In fact, he said the following just last night. You should be ashamed for plagiarizing -


"Non-Aggression principle - don't use force unless force has been applied to you... Liberty and freedom always come down on the side of choice, that we as individuals should always make choices in our lives as long as those choices don't adversely affect others."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7TrKpboDg8

Sorry, but I get chills of awesomeness hearing him say this stuff to an arch-liberal talk show host.

And if you don't watch any of the rest of that video, watch the last 20 seconds!

JohnM
07-30-2016, 10:51 AM
Lol. I'm amused at how many people are dismayed that libertarianism could be associated with (not defined by) "inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity." Which of those qualities is incompatible with libertarianism, and why would one find any of them undersireable? Until a staunch libertarian (which GJ is far, far from) can stand up in front of America and sincerely say "I feel your pain," there will be no true liberty advocates representing the American people in Clarksville City Hall let alone Washington DC.


I don't disagree. But I have reservations.

I have no problem with libertarianism being associated with "inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity." But when that moves toward a desire to associated with those qualities, and then to doing everything one can to ensure that it is associated with those qualities, then one has come a long way toward defining libertarianism by those qualities.

And when that happens, one may feel that it is helpful to jettison aspects of libertarianism. So out goes freedom of association, because it might lead to actions that cause people to feel excluded. And out goes freedom of speech for the same reason. And of course if we are compassionate, we have to have socialized medicine and a welfare state. And if we are reasonable, then . . . .[fill in the blank]


Gary Johnson does not need the vote of anybody on RPF. I posit that it would be best for him to avoid them like the plague.

Sure GJ doesn't need the votes of hard core libertarians / Ron Paulists / members of this forum. Nor does Hillary Clinton. Nor does Donald Trump. GJ and HC and DT are all in this to get votes. Fine.

I'm not interested in what is best for GJ any more than I am interested in what is best for DT or HC. I'm interested in what is best for the cause of liberty. And I'm not convinced that a vote for GJ will help the cause of liberty much more than a vote for HC or DT.

Natural Citizen
07-30-2016, 11:03 AM
Wow, you talk like a Johnson supporter. In fact, he said the following just last night. -



Well. That's certainly the right philosophy. One that I've repeated many times here of late. He'd do well to straighten his position out to reflect ihis words here fully, though. This is the difference between talking about it and being about it. Will see how it goes, I suppose. He has some critical patching up to do.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 11:05 AM
I don't disagree. But I have reservations...

Thanks for that thoughtful response. I'll just add (somewhat related to the OP) that I think those qualities are Christ-like. It would be nice to see them in a candidate. And even if Gary Johnson (who just cited the NAP on national TV) isn't everybody's cup of tea, he will contrast favorably for many with the dishonesty, criminality, sociopathy and coarse incivility of trumplary.

erowe1
07-30-2016, 11:10 AM
He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes.

Why? Moderates already have the major party candidates.

Socons would love to have someone besides Trump to vote for, and they make up a huge voting block. Gary should actively court them, and instead it's as if he wants to push them away. He would rather get 1% of the vote without their support than 10% with it.

Is there any doubt that if Ron Paul were a little younger and were the LP candidate this year that he would be a huge factor? And that wouldn't be by way of moderating all of his stances, but by presenting the same genuine, thoughtful, consistent ideological persona that he always has.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 11:22 AM
Why? Moderates already have the major party candidates.

Socons would love to have someone besides Trump to vote for, and they make up a huge voting block. Gary should actively court them, and instead it's as if he wants to push them away. He would rather get 1% of the vote without their support than 10% with it.

Is there any doubt that if Ron Paul were a little younger and were the LP candidate this year that he would be a huge factor? And that wouldn't be by way of moderating all of his stances, but by presenting the same genuine, thoughtful, consistent ideological persona that he always has.

Gary Johnson couldn't resonate with socons if he tried. He's just not that guy. And really, Ron failed with socons in the end. There's just too much drive to restrict personal choice (not their own, but that of others) among that sect. Even if they may on some issues have the moral high ground, they're the definition of exclusive and insular. To court them would be to entirely alienate the left, who Gary Johnson does resonate with.

I don't think trump and Hillary are comfortable for moderates at all. Don't underestimate the volatility of the situation - the electorate has gotten itself into a pickle, and it's increasingly scared to death of these two people. Gary Johnson is the only escape hatch. He will be a bombshell if he makes the debates.

Natural Citizen
07-30-2016, 11:23 AM
Moderates



This has always seemed like such a deceptive and meaningless buzzword to me. I understand its meaning. But it's always thrown around so deceptively. I think its dishonest to do that. I'm not insinuating that you're doing that. I'm just expressing my distaste for the fact that it's generally done that way.

nobody's_hero
07-30-2016, 11:33 AM
His conclusion on the issue is entirely wrong; businesses should not be forced to serve people they don't want to serve, for whatever reason.

But he's right that "religious freedom" is a "black hole." It could be used to justify anything.

The proper argument against forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes et al is based on property rights, not this nebulous "religious freedom."

I'll wager there are as many people if not more who believe that "property rights" is also a black hole.

The truth of the matter is, if someone wants to strip you of your freedom, they don't give a damn what justification you use to defend it.

presence
07-30-2016, 11:34 AM
You think it's the federal government's job to prevent—

"Discrimination. Yes."

In all cases?

"Yes, yes, in all cases. Yes.



http://i.imgur.com/Zv1Tzf7.gif

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 12:02 PM
This has always seemed like such a deceptive and meaningless buzzword to me. I understand its meaning. But it's always thrown around so deceptively. I think its dishonest to do that. I'm not insinuating that you're doing that. I'm just expressing my distaste for the fact that it's generally done that way.

I think I see what you mean. But a huge plurality (almost a majority) of voters aren't hardcore anything. If you buy into what this website is selling, 47% of voters self-identify as "moderate" -

http://republic3-0.com/myth-independent-voter-stefan-hankin/

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 12:06 PM
I'll wager there are as many people if not more who believe that "property rights" is also a black hole.

That's why Sanders.

Again, if a candidate talks abstractly about "property rights," it's code for slavery. Best case, it's "Get off my lawn." But somehow if you phrase it as "right to make a choice," people are okay with that.

erowe1
07-30-2016, 12:14 PM
Again, if a candidate talks abstractly about "property rights," it's code for slavery. Best case, it's "Get off my lawn." But somehow if you phrase it as "right to make a choice," people are okay with that.

It's imperative that we, and anyone like Gary Johnson who purports to stand for liberty, change public opinion on this. If phrases like "property rights" and "freedom of association" sound extreme, then that's all the more reason to keep repeating them until they are mainstream. The idea that a person has the right to do business and not do business with whomever they want using their own property is positively unimpeachable. We just need to keep making people face that and consider it. We need to educate them. Giving into their nonsense is the very opposite of what we should do.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 12:20 PM
It's imperative that we, and anyone like Gary Johnson who purports to stand for liberty, change public opinion on this. If phrases like "property rights" and "freedom of association" sound extreme, then that's all the more reason to keep repeating them until they are mainstream. The idea that a person has the right to do business and not do business with whomever they want using their own property is positively unimpeachable. We just need to keep making people face that and consider it. We need to educate them. Giving into their nonsense is the very opposite of what we should do.

Yes, GJ can do that if he wants your and my stamp of approval. He'd better not if he wants to make a good showing this election.

One of my favorite things about Ron Paul was when he framed environmental issues in a property rights context. No individual or company would have a right to pollute in any way that damages someone's property or person. The implications are extreme and go way further than the most draconian Kyoto Summit pipedream. All of the environmental left would get serious about property rights if they understood that.

euphemia
07-30-2016, 06:15 PM
The question was what evidence is there to suggest that Castle is more serious about ending the Fed or non-interventionism than Johnson?

Except that Castle has said very clearly that he will end the Federal Reserve and that he believes in a defense-only military. He doesn't beat around the bush, and he is saying the very same things this year that he said eight years ago. Castle is a principled libertarian.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 06:23 PM
Castle is awesome.

specsaregood
07-30-2016, 06:23 PM
Except that Castle has said very clearly that he will end the Federal Reserve and that he believes in a defense-only military. He doesn't beat around the bush, and he is saying the very same things this year that he said eight years ago. Castle is a principled libertarian.

https://i.imgflip.com/187p5p.jpg

Origanalist
07-30-2016, 06:25 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/187p5p.jpg

Priorities....

euphemia
07-30-2016, 06:31 PM
:rolleyes: That's definitely more important than TPP, NAFTA, and all the rest. It cracks me up how some members will fall all over themselves justifying Johnson/Weld for their, um, difficult positions, but they will pick up every little nuance of other candidates and blast off.

erowe1
07-30-2016, 09:04 PM
Yes, GJ can do that if he wants your and my stamp of approval. He'd better not if he wants to make a good showing this election.


I disagree. Winning as a libertarian doesn't mean becoming what people already want if what they want is despotism. Winning means changing their minds.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 09:22 PM
I disagree. Winning as a libertarian doesn't mean becoming what people already want if what they want is despotism. Winning means changing their minds.

Well okay. But he's running around on national TV spreading the NAP gospel and proclaiming that we need to stop the wars, so even the most stringent have to admit he's making the case.

Occam's Banana
07-30-2016, 09:56 PM
Lol. I'm amused at how many people are dismayed that libertarianism could be associated with (not defined by) "inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity."

I do not recall anyone in this thread having expressed dismay at libertarianism being associated with those things.

I certainly did not. IMO, both morally and positively, it can and should be associated with those things.

But that is not what you said before. You clearly stated that libertarianism ought to be defined by those things (emphasis added):

[Johnson] needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity.

To say that a word "means" something is to define it, not to "associate" it.

(In post #79 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498708-Gary-Johnson-Religious-freedom-as-a-category-is-a-black-hole&p=6275918&viewfull=1#post6275918), JohnM did a good job of summarizing the illibertarian consequences of defining libertarianism in such a way, so I won't belabor the point.)


I'll say it again since it seems to make people so mad - Gary Johnson does not need the vote of anybody on RPF. [...]

Again, that is not what you said. You said this (bold emphasis added, capitalization emphasis in the original):

[Johnson] doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes.

No one is "mad" at you for saying this. (I am not, at least.) You are simply and bizarrely wrong. To say that a third party in American electoral politics does not need "ANY" support from its base is grotesquely absurd. Such parties need every vote they can get just to maintain ballot access (and never mind other things like making "a good showing," let alone actually "winning").


It's imperative that we, and anyone like Gary Johnson who purports to stand for liberty, change public opinion on this. If phrases like "property rights" and "freedom of association" sound extreme, then that's all the more reason to keep repeating them until they are mainstream. The idea that a person has the right to do business and not do business with whomever they want using their own property is positively unimpeachable. We just need to keep making people face that and consider it. We need to educate them. Giving into their nonsense is the very opposite of what we should do.

That is exactly what motivated my comment in post #72 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498708-Gary-Johnson-Religious-freedom-as-a-category-is-a-black-hole&p=6275731&viewfull=1#post6275731) about abandoning those concepts to the "knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers."

If things like "property rights" and "freedom of association" are to be dismissed as "code" for "yay! racism!" and "I love slavery," then whatever cause one imagines one is defending or advancing by doing so, it is manifestly not the cause of human liberty ...


[in reply to the above post quote by erowe1]

Yes, GJ can do that if he wants your and my stamp of approval. He'd better not if he wants to make a good showing this election.

And what is the point of making "a good showing this election" if he does not "do that?"

Setting things up for an ever better showing for "William Weld 2020?" (Or whatever similar point might be next on the trend line?)

Thanks, but no thanks ...

euphemia
07-30-2016, 09:57 PM
But, but, but........Johnson.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 10:44 PM
But that is not what you said before. You clearly stated that libertarianism ought to be defined by those things (emphasis added):
To say that a word "means" something is to define it, not to "associate" it.

Okay, but this is quibbling. You're purposely using the word "means" to be synonymous with a definition, which was not the intent. But I'll take a strike for clarity.

I would love it if libertarianism was such that it self-evidently contained those qualities, but then we wouldn't be able to allow bad people to be libertarians.


To say that a third party in American electoral politics does not need "ANY" support from its base is grotesquely absurd.

I'll hold that when the numbers are so small, and the collateral damage caused by appeasement so high, it's counterproductive for GJ to even address those groups, let alone appease them. The trump and Bernie r3VOLutions have shown that Ron Paul's movement was not composed of a significant amount of libertarian thinkers or even proper paleocons. There aren't very many of those and Rand proved that it was impossible to corral them.


And what is the point of making "a good showing this election" if he does not "do that?"

It's very fashionable to write off Gary Johnson as unlibertarian and cakes and anti-Kony and all of that. Meanwhile, while people are yelling into the ether on RPF, he's going on national TV, pumping the NAP and telling people "Let's stop the wars." That has a point to it. And poll success RIGHT NOW is crucial would have a major bearing on the future of alternative parties in the United States. Sorry about Weld and all.

r3volution 3.0
07-31-2016, 07:43 PM
Except that Castle has said very clearly that he will end the Federal Reserve

So has Johnson


and that he believes in a defense-only military

So has Johnson, with the exception of one statement in tentative support of humanitarian interventions if/when Congress authorized it.

...which, despite being contrary to the norm in the liberty movement in this country, is actually not unlibertarian.

Unless you're an anarchist, you already accept the principle of socialized defense; A pays taxes to defend B, etc.


He doesn't beat around the bush, and he is saying the very same things this year that he said eight years ago. Castle is a principled libertarian.

If a person cannot bring themselves to vote for Johnson for whatever silly reason, fine, vote Castle.

...assuming he's on the ballot in your state (he won't be on the ballot in many states).

But, regardless, you'll be voting for Trumpenfuhrer, won't you sweetheart?

Tywysog Cymru
08-02-2016, 05:23 PM
It's not just about cakes, Gary Johnson basically is saying that religious conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have certain careers.

euphemia
08-02-2016, 05:37 PM
Winning means changing their minds.

This ^^^^