View Full Version : Gary Supports a Smoking Ban in Private Restaurants
Krugminator2
08-23-2016, 05:52 PM
Here are a couple of fun quotes from 2011 that I took out a link from this Rolling Stone article. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712?utm_campaign=Contact+SNS+For+More+Referrer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=snsanalytics
Smoking ban, can't see why anyone would hesitate on the Civil Rights Act.
Q: What did you think of Rand Paul’s initial statements about the Civil Rights Act, that the government should not tell private businesses they can’t discriminate? That’s consistent with libertarian views, right?
A: When he made those statements, I thought to myself, “This is probably why I’m a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line.” I’d like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldn’t have had any issues with it.
Q: You thought about this because of what Paul said?
A: Yes. As a result of his statements, I found myself engaged in discussions over just that notion. I was trying to think of examples where I would have sided with the notion that government does have a role in that capacity. Something analogous is smoking in restaurants. I was opposed to the government mandating that restaurants not allow people to smoke, believing it becomes the customer’s choice whether they go in or not. But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren’t they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don’t smoke?
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 05:56 PM
Heh. Okay. Where ya wanna go with this, Krug?
I maintain that policy does not and cannot define Individual Liberty. When policy starts to define the terms of Individual Liberty, you're left with a Government-over-Man scenario. I maintain that principles define the terms of Individual Liberty. Which stimulates a Man-over-Government scenario. Yeah or naw? What say you?
euphemia
08-23-2016, 06:00 PM
I can't be unbiased here. I despise smoking.
I think this is a local and state issue, not a national one.
Suzanimal
08-23-2016, 06:08 PM
I can't be unbiased here. I despise smoking.
I think this is a local and state issue, not a national one.
It's very local. Up to the business owner.
phill4paul
08-23-2016, 06:12 PM
It's very local. Up to the business owner.
As easy as saying "This is a smoking establishment do you have a problem with that?" Yes = no hire. No = hire.
spudea
08-23-2016, 06:24 PM
Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.
"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman
"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman
It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.
Krugminator2
08-23-2016, 06:35 PM
Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.
"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman
"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman
It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.
They are completely different issues. There is a 0.00% chance Milton Friedman would support a smoking ban in private facilities. Read the quotes you just posted.
In the case of a private restaurant, there is a market arrangement. You have someone who owns a building and workers and patrons have the option to enter or nor enter. No one is forcing them. If someone gets exposed to second hand smoke, they are VOLUNTARILY choosing to bear that cost. That is the definition of a market arrangement.
You don't have a market arrangement with the air or water because no one owns the air or water. If you burn coal and it pollutes and it creates acid rain, that is cost that people can't voluntarily avoid.
As an aside, Milton Friedman was against the Civil Rights Act because of the private property violations it created.
Suzanimal
08-23-2016, 06:39 PM
Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.
"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman
"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman
It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.
Haven't we been over this before? What do you not understand about private property?:confused:
specsaregood
08-23-2016, 06:44 PM
This is probably why I’m a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line.
Whew, that was close. Good thing he isn't a Libertarian. lol
69360
08-23-2016, 06:48 PM
Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 06:51 PM
Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone
And therein lies the major malfunction. He's not going to be president. What he's accomplishing is stimulating the wrong message of Liberty.
These are not pet issues. These are fundamentals. The arguments I'm reading are contrary to and aggressive toward the fundamental supporting principles of the right to Life and Individual Liberty itself.
Normally I wouldn't care. But his message is aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty from under the banner of Liberty. And that's what makes his rhetoric dangerous. Elections? Please. That's at the bottom of the totem pole at this point.
I mean, here's guy who said that it was his contention that it was acceptable to send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal means of securing their right to Life and Liberty fully. He's a guy that said that he'd consider signing off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People to a King.
And you're going to sit here and tell us, oh, well, do it for a third party? I've got news for you, the establishment party has basically expanded by way of the Libertarian Party this cycle. And it was absolutely predictable that they would given the major Third Party and Independent turnout during the 2014 Mid-Term. There's no way they didn't see it and there was no way they weren't going to react. And here we are. We're promoting a candidate who openly professes the positions I've mentioned above...and in Liberty, no less.
It's no accident that all of these establishment politicians are flocking to the Libertarian Party. No accident at all.
Best case you could make would be vote for the L Party just to maintain ballot access but I can't and won't do it based on principle alone. I'll go with Castle on principle.
spudea
08-23-2016, 06:59 PM
Haven't we been over this before? What do you not understand about private property?:confused:
If you recall, my market based solution was private ownership of the air. Thus business owners can be held responsible for shitty air quality imposing harm on their patrons and employees. I'm not here to rehash that debate.
Let us resume the hate on Gary Johnson, please continue everyone.
r3volution 3.0
08-23-2016, 07:07 PM
Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.
"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman
"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman
It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.
They are completely different issues. There is a 0.00% chance Milton Friedman would support a smoking ban in private facilities. Read the quotes you just posted.
In the case of a private restaurant, there is a market arrangement. You have someone who owns a building and workers and patrons have the option to enter or nor enter. No one is forcing them. If someone gets exposed to second hand smoke, they are VOLUNTARILY choosing to bear that cost. That is the definition of a market arrangement.
You don't have a market arrangement with the air or water because no one owns the air or water. If you burn coal and it pollutes and it creates acid rain, that is cost that people can't voluntarily avoid.
As an aside, Milton Friedman was against the Civil Rights Act because of the private property violations it created.
The namesake of the monstrous Keynesian economist is correct.
Property rights violations are by definition involuntary.
If a person consents to being subjected to something (whatever: smoke, cyanide, a punch in the face) it isn't a property rights violation.
This (unlike the CO2 tax) is not debatable; Gary's clearly in the wrong here.
I gave him an A- in my evaluation, might have to drop it down to a B+.
...Trumpllary are both at F- though, so nothing changes as to my vote.
PursuePeace
08-23-2016, 07:12 PM
It's very local. Up to the business owner.
exactly.
phill4paul
08-23-2016, 07:16 PM
Gary Johnson is a SWJ. And a bit of the SJW. He won't get any vote from me. God forbid he place well and and the L.P. seeks out more candidates like him.
donnay
08-23-2016, 07:23 PM
People call this man a Libertarian? :rolleyes:
It's time for the Libertarian party to regroup.
69360
08-23-2016, 07:23 PM
Gary Johnson is a SWJ. And a bit of the SJW. He won't get any vote from me. God forbid he place well and and the L.P. seeks out more candidates like him.
More candidates like Johnson wouldn't be the end of the world. He is a least honest, decent and means well. So what if he doesn't pass some people's silly purity tests. More candidates like Clinton and Trump are the end of the world.
69360
08-23-2016, 07:25 PM
And therein lies the major malfunction. He's not going to be president. What he's accomplishing is stimulating the wrong message of Liberty.
These are not pet issues. These are fundamentals. The arguments I'm reading are contrary to and aggressive toward the fundamental supporting principles of the right to Life and Individual Liberty itself.
Normally I wouldn't care. But his message is aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty from under the banner of Liberty. And that's what makes his rhetoric dangerous. Elections? Please. That's at the bottom of the totem pole at this point.
I mean, here's guy who said that it was his contention that it was acceptable to send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal means of securing their right to Life and Liberty fully. He's a guy that said that he'd consider signing off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People to a King.
And you're going to sit here and tell us, oh, well, do it for a third party? I've got news for you, the establishment party has basically expanded by way of the Libertarian Party this cycle. And it was absolutely predictable that they would given the major Third Party and Independent turnout during the 2014 Mid-Term. There's no way they didn't see it and there was no way they weren't going to react. And here we are. We're promoting a candidate who openly professes the positions I've mentioned above...and in Liberty, no less.
It's no accident that all of these establishment politicians are flocking to the Libertarian Party. No accident at all.
Best case you could make would be vote for the L Party just to maintain ballot access but I can't and won't do it based on principle alone. I'll go with Castle on principle.
Nothing wrong with Castle, he and his party are just going nowhere. With Johnson and the LP, they are mostly good and making waves. Double digit polls and a mostly ok platform are steps in the right direction.
phill4paul
08-23-2016, 07:29 PM
More candidates like Johnson wouldn't be the end of the world. He is a least honest, decent and means well. So what if he doesn't pass some people's silly purity tests. More candidates like Clinton and Trump are the end of the world.
If it weren't for my "silly purity tests" I might as well be voting for Trump or Clinton.
r3volution 3.0
08-23-2016, 07:29 PM
People call this man a Libertarian?
Pro-Liberty Positions:
end the fed, return to gold standard
balance the budget through spending cuts
replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
abolish Dept. of Education
opposes all business subsidies
opposed TARP
opposed auto company bailouts
opposes Keynesian stimulus spending
opposed Obamacare
opposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bush
favors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid
opposes labor unions
wants to eliminate the minimum wage
opposes immigration restrictions/deportation
favors tree trade, opposes tariffs
opposes governmental regulation of internet
opposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spying
opposed Iraq and Libya Wars
opposes involvement in Syria Civil War
opposes involvement in Ukraine Civil War
favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
favors cuts in defense spending
supports 2nd Amendment
opposes War on Drugs
favors legalization of assisted suicide
Anti-Liberty Positions
favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays
favors smoking ban in private venues
Close enough
donnay
08-23-2016, 07:29 PM
More candidates like Johnson wouldn't be the end of the world. He is a least honest, decent and means well. So what if he doesn't pass some people's silly purity tests. More candidates like Clinton and Trump are the end of the world.
Good song!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY
69360
08-23-2016, 07:36 PM
If it weren't for my "silly purity tests" I might as well be voting for Trump or Clinton.
It gets taken to extremes here way too often. There are several posters who reply in every single threat ranting on because a basically decent candidate doesn't support their pet issue.
69360
08-23-2016, 07:37 PM
Pro-Liberty Positions:
end the fed, return to gold standard
balance the budget through spending cuts
replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
abolish Dept. of Education
opposes all business subsidies
opposed TARP
opposed auto company bailouts
opposes Keynesian stimulus spending
opposed Obamacare
opposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bush
favors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid
opposes labor unions
wants to eliminate the minimum wage
opposes immigration restrictions/deportation
favors tree trade, opposes tariffs
opposes governmental regulation of internet
opposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spying
opposed Iraq and Libya Wars
opposes involvement in Syria Civil War
opposes involvement in Ukraine Civil War
favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
favors cuts in defense spending
supports 2nd Amendment
opposes War on Drugs
favors legalization of assisted suicide
Anti-Liberty Positions
favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays
favors smoking ban in private venues
Close enough
I'll take a bit of SJW over neocon warmonger any day if given the choice.
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 07:38 PM
I gave him an A- in my evaluation, might have to drop it down to a B+.
I gave him an F because he contended that he'd send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their right to property.
As you may know, the 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 Life and Liberty itself.
His contention that he rejects the indispensable and principal material support for the right to Life and Liberty itself is a patent contention that he rejects the concept of the right to Life and Liberty fully.
Also he wanted a basic universal income funded by involuntary carbon taxes and he contended that he'd consider transferring power from The People to a King.
He said these things under the banner of Liberty, no less.
So basically, screw Gary Johnson and the stalking horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse)he rode in on is my view.
donnay
08-23-2016, 07:57 PM
I gave him an F because he contended that he'd send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their right to property.
As you may know, the 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 Life and Liberty itself.
His contention that he rejects the indispensable and principal material support for the right to Life and Liberty itself is a patent contention that he rejects the concept of the right to Life and Liberty fully.
Also he wanted a basic universal income funded by involuntary carbon taxes and he contended that he'd consider transferring power from The People to a King.
He said these things under the banner of Liberty, no less.
So basically, screw Gary Johnson and the stalking horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse)he rode in on is my view.
He is also for TPP which is just more managed trade and more globalists controls.
Pffffft.
The more I learn about Gary Johnson, the more certain I am that he is dangerously brain-damaged.
Dangerous to us, that is.
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 08:01 PM
He is also for TPP which is just more managed trade and more globalists controls.
Pffffft.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I mentioned that he contended that he'd consider signing an illegal transfer of power from the People to a King. That's patently what the TPP does.
The statesman, with whom I agree, makes it crystal clear and in short, concise order...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYF7aRGtNcg
I can't be unbiased here. I despise smoking.
I think this is a local and state issue, not a national one.
Methinks not.
It isn't a governmental issue at all, whether national or local. It's an individual issue.
donnay
08-23-2016, 08:07 PM
Yeah, that's what I meant when I mentioned that he contended that he'd consider signing an illegal transfer of power from the People to a King. That's patently what the TPP does.
The statesman, with whom I agree, makes it crystal clear and in short, concise order...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYF7aRGtNcg
I am all out of rep. I owe you a couple. Spot on, NC!
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 08:10 PM
Methinks not.
It isn't a governmental issue at all, whether national or local. It's an individual issue.
Yep.
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 08:11 PM
I am all out of rep. I owe you a couple. Spot on, NC!
It's all good. As long as we keep putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.
It's a given that the truth won't be welcomed by deceivers. Is what it is. Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Right?
If you recall, my market based solution was private ownership of the air. Thus business owners can be held responsible for shitty air quality imposing harm on their patrons and employees. I'm not here to rehash that debate.
Not so fast. Holding a business owner responsible for KNOWN risks is not even remotely valid. If a bar owner allows smoking in his establishment, you enter that space at your own risk. If you feel second-hand smoke might give you cancer, then do not go in. This is pretty simple stuff, unless the individual in question is afflicted with entitleitis, wherein he psychotically comes to believe that he is entitled to enter upon that premise under circumstances of his fiat. It is a degenerative disease that turns a man's mind and soul into a foul smelling goo.
The circumstance where your claim is possibly valid would be one where the patrons are knowingly kept ignorant of some danger to themselves.
The two general scenarios are fundamentally different
And therein lies the major malfunction. He's not going to be president. What he's accomplishing is stimulating the wrong message of Liberty.
These are not pet issues. These are fundamentals. The arguments I'm reading are contrary to and aggressive toward the fundamental supporting principles of the right to Life and Individual Liberty itself.
Normally I wouldn't care. But his message is aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty from under the banner of Liberty. And that's what makes his rhetoric dangerous. Elections? Please. That's at the bottom of the totem pole at this point.
I mean, here's guy who said that it was his contention that it was acceptable to send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal means of securing their right to Life and Liberty fully. He's a guy that said that he'd consider signing off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People to a King.
And you're going to sit here and tell us, oh, well, do it for a third party? I've got news for you, the establishment party has basically expanded by way of the Libertarian Party this cycle. And it was absolutely predictable that they would given the major Third Party and Independent turnout during the 2014 Mid-Term. There's no way they didn't see it and there was no way they weren't going to react. And here we are. We're promoting a candidate who openly professes the positions I've mentioned above...and in Liberty, no less.
It's no accident that all of these establishment politicians are flocking to the Libertarian Party. No accident at all.
Best case you could make would be vote for the L Party just to maintain ballot access but I can't and won't do it based on principle alone. I'll go with Castle on principle.
This was excellent. I could not have said it better.
I'll take a bit of SJW over neocon warmonger any day if given the choice.
That's like choosing to take a 12" schlong up the chute or a 13. Your backside isn't going to know the difference.
So basically, screw Gary Johnson and the stalking horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse)he rode in on is my view.
Learn to spell "dildo" properly.
Damned kids...
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 08:26 PM
This was excellent. I could not have said it better.
After November we're going to have to get this boat back in the right direction. And we're going to have to go nuts and bolts. Some feelings are going to have to get hurt. Is what it is.
After November we're going to have to get this boat back in the right direction. And we're going to have to go nuts and bolts. Some feelings are going to have to get hurt. Is what it is.
Perhaps a clean sheet is needed, starting from the ground up, i.e., fundamental principles first and build on that?
Whatever happened with Bryan's framework dealio?
donnay
08-23-2016, 08:35 PM
It's all good. As long as we keep putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.
It's a given that the truth won't be welcomed by deceivers. Is what it is. Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Right?
Absolutely!
69360
08-23-2016, 08:35 PM
That's like choosing to take a 12" schlong up the chute or a 13. Your backside isn't going to know the difference.
Nah, the sjws at least mean well even though they are misguided. They aren't running for personal gain like the neocons are.
69360
08-23-2016, 08:37 PM
Perhaps a clean sheet is needed, starting from the ground up, i.e., fundamental principles first and build on that?
Whatever happened with Bryan's framework dealio?
The LP is probably going to get the most votes ever and you want start over? :rolleyes:
GunnyFreedom
08-23-2016, 08:42 PM
Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.
"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman
"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman
It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.
The structure of your communication causes me mental pain and anguish. You owe me a million dollars. You can make the check payable to.....
Natural Citizen
08-23-2016, 08:52 PM
Perhaps a clean sheet is needed, starting from the ground up, i.e., fundamental principles first and build on that?
Whatever happened with Bryan's framework dealio?
Yep. I think so.
In fact, I was just thinking about that framework the other day when one of these goof balls had mentioned to me that my intentions in being here will matter less in time, once action commences and that it would be a better guide on whether I was "with us, or against us" and that my continued thrashing of threads for the efforts to get Johnson elected will be considered mal-intent. Not partaking is different than sabotaging, he told me. I basically told hm to go hump himself. Heh.
Bryan has the right idea in doing that, though. It's the more practical way to go. Well, as far as here anyway. This platform, I mean.
Nah, the sjws at least mean well even though they are misguided. They aren't running for personal gain like the neocons are.
Oh I disagree. Firstly, their intentions are irrelevant. Secondly, I see plenty of malice from that quarter. They are very fast to wish death and destruction upon all who fail to toe their line of nonsense. They have no personal grace whatsoever, and are dangerously stupid.
As for personal gain, you bet your itching asshole they are running for their own interests. That brand of ego knows nothing BUT self-absorption and aggrandizement. I believe the new term for their self-centered bullshit is "virtue signaling" or some such. These are the most singularly and repulsively dishonest people I have ever encountered in my entire life. They are not only as bad as neocons, they are worse. Get those people into positions of real political power and then sit back and watch the fun. Between the third-wave feminists who'd be cat-fighting each other for dibs on your balls which they would hang from their rear-view mirrors, to BLM schmucks who'd have you slaved out in penance, to the white-guilt crowd, safe-spacers, and so on down the revolting litany of brain-damaged idiots of that general ilk, you'd be pining away for the good old days of the lovely neocons who at least left you mostly alone so long as you paid your taxes without too much complaint.
Yes, the neos suck hemorrhoids, but they are as godly and saintly men when compared with the mindless, glaze-eyed viciousness of the SJW. The two cannot even be compared as they are in two completely disjoint classes. The SJWs in power would put Stalin and Mao to shame, for they are the logically absurd conclusion to which the left world-view had no choice but to lead.
The LP is probably going to get the most votes ever and you want start over? :rolleyes:
If Johnson is he best the LP could come up with, then you had best believe that my answer is an unequivocal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zaCUBTI8wc
euphemia
08-23-2016, 09:34 PM
The LP is probably going to get the most votes ever and you want start over? :rolleyes:
I would like to start. Full stop. There is no Libertarian Candidate. Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian.
DamianTV
08-24-2016, 01:14 AM
Real Freedom would be the ability of Shop Owners to decide, not the Govt, not the local or federal bureaucrats, not Crony Capitalists, not the Marxists or SJW Pansies, the fucking shop owners. When one can not decree what shall and shall not happen on their own property, then it is no longer their property, and the people are no longer free. Private Property is the foundation upon which personal freedom is built, and to dictate what someone else can and can not do on that property is a violation of that persons property rights and liberty itself.
Nils Dacke
08-24-2016, 01:28 AM
Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone
Joining a site like this one, I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning. Apparently not so, judging from the arguments in the different Johnson threads. Voting the lesser evil does little in the long run but to reinforce whatever processs or system which produced the evil to begin with. The world isn't coming to an end with this election cycle outcome, yet how horrible the major candidates might be - and if it did, it would be more of a call to arms than a call to the voting booths.
If Johnson wants to pander to 'pragmatic' moderates of various centrist flavours, which he obviously wants, let them have him. The more important for principled libertarians to show there's a living, viable movement beyond him - that libertarianism doesn't end with shallow weed legalization and 'social liberalism, fiscal conservatism' but is a whole, attractive philosophy based in consistent freedom and self-ownership for both bakers and butt buddies.
The only way for political change to come, is to change the political stance of people. Not gain their vote by adapting to their current stance - holding office on such mandate leaves little room for actual change. That's why it's important not to succumb to the ultimatum of the lesser of X evils hostage situation, whereby a politician force you to get on board with their views. That only shifts the political spectrum the wrong way. Let's reverse the roles and put the ultimatum on people like Johnson: Either figure out a way to run an attractive campaign to newcomers without compromising the fundamental principles of liberty, or have us vote someone actually principaled and libertyloving like Castle.
Voting the greater good shifts the overton window in the right way over time and forces politicians to adapt to each and everyone whom we sway by our philosophy. Voting the lesser evil shifts the overton window the wrong way over time and removes the attractive position of arguing from a consequent, logical philosophy to that of trying to appeal to - reinforcing - their already existing views with a bland wishwashy mess of a stance. That's far more important in the long run than stopping Clinton (or Trump), even more important than seizing this change of getting into the debates, reaching the 5% needed for increased funding and all those arguments being thrown around. Being from another country than the USA, which you've probably already understood from my somewhat flawed English, it's just amazing how this golden opportunity you have in voting for people actually principaled and libertyloving rooted in your rich foundation upon freedom - and yet many decides to go with someone as bland and inconsistent as Johnson.
TheTexan
08-24-2016, 01:52 AM
Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone
A 3rd party might be pretty cool. We would have a third choice, in addition to the two choices we have already.
But it would also make voting way harder than it is already. With 3 parties you have much higher chance of wasting your vote, if your candidate loses.
Something to think about.
P3ter_Griffin
08-24-2016, 03:31 AM
Joining a site like this one, I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning. Apparently not so, judging from the arguments in the different Johnson threads. Voting the lesser evil does little in the long run but to reinforce whatever processs or system which produced the evil to begin with. The world isn't coming to an end with this election cycle outcome, yet how horrible the major candidates might be - and if it did, it would be more of a call to arms than a call to the voting booths.
For many people, the world will end depending on the outcome of this election cycle. If you mean it more literally, that the world is literally going to end depending on the election outcome, it is a pretty safe bet we will have already been a group that got the axe... quite possibly literally.
Maybe it is an unpopular position here, but when the lesser X will prevent the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives, and as a cherry on top, will reduce tax and regulatory burden, I will gladly accept.
A government doing less harm is good. Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.
Why do you value higher voting on principle over the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives? Or is that not a consideration for you? It is just principled or not... you don't even look to see what the different outcomes would be?
I agree with you to a point about 'holding out your vote'. A couple percentage points tax decrease or a few regulations doesn't necessarily warrant caving. But when we are talking about lives? and 1000's of lives at that?
I'm sure your familiar with the golden rule, what would your wishes be if a foreign government was ravaging your land causing death and destruction with war, and the voters of that foreign government had a candidate with a path to victory that intended to end to the warfare? Would you hope that they would vote for him?
And didn't Castle say that he'd leave at the Gitmo prisoners in prison forever, because they had been in there to long? Does that principle extend to individual's held in domestic prisons? Is it a principle at all? Is it consistent?
69360
08-24-2016, 04:48 AM
If Johnson is he best the LP could come up with, then you had best believe that my answer is an unequivocal...
I would like to start. Full stop. There is no Libertarian Candidate. Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian.
People like the two of you will never be effective in politics.
Joining a site like this one, I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning. Apparently not so, judging from the arguments in the different Johnson threads. Voting the lesser evil does little in the long run but to reinforce whatever processs or system which produced the evil to begin with. The world isn't coming to an end with this election cycle outcome, yet how horrible the major candidates might be - and if it did, it would be more of a call to arms than a call to the voting booths.
If Johnson wants to pander to 'pragmatic' moderates of various centrist flavours, which he obviously wants, let them have him. The more important for principled libertarians to show there's a living, viable movement beyond him - that libertarianism doesn't end with shallow weed legalization and 'social liberalism, fiscal conservatism' but is a whole, attractive philosophy based in consistent freedom and self-ownership for both bakers and butt buddies.
The only way for political change to come, is to change the political stance of people. Not gain their vote by adapting to their current stance - holding office on such mandate leaves little room for actual change. That's why it's important not to succumb to the ultimatum of the lesser of X evils hostage situation, whereby a politician force you to get on board with their views. That only shifts the political spectrum the wrong way. Let's reverse the roles and put the ultimatum on people like Johnson: Either figure out a way to run an attractive campaign to newcomers without compromising the fundamental principles of liberty, or have us vote someone actually principaled and libertyloving like Castle.
Voting the greater good shifts the overton window in the right way over time and forces politicians to adapt to each and everyone whom we sway by our philosophy. Voting the lesser evil shifts the overton window the wrong way over time and removes the attractive position of arguing from a consequent, logical philosophy to that of trying to appeal to - reinforcing - their already existing views with a bland wishwashy mess of a stance. That's far more important in the long run than stopping Clinton (or Trump), even more important than seizing this change of getting into the debates, reaching the 5% needed for increased funding and all those arguments being thrown around. Being from another country than the USA, which you've probably already understood from my somewhat flawed English, it's just amazing how this golden opportunity you have in voting for people actually principaled and libertyloving rooted in your rich foundation upon freedom - and yet many decides to go with someone as bland and inconsistent as Johnson.
Johnson isn't evil. Sure the guy is a little goofy and probably doesn't give the most concise interviews. But he's not a crook like the 2 major party candidates.
A 3rd party might be pretty cool. We would have a third choice, in addition to the two choices we have already.
But it would also make voting way harder than it is already. With 3 parties you have much higher chance of wasting your vote, if your candidate loses.
Something to think about.
Assuming a strong third party it would also lower the threshold for a decent candidate to win.
H. E. Panqui
08-24-2016, 05:46 AM
69360 asserts: People like the two of you will never be effective in politics.
(honest 'politics' amounts to nothing more or less than 'a competition of ideas about government'..you republicrats will note that in honest competitions the actions of the participants are first and foremost and the actions of the announcers, cheerleaders, etc., are secondary to the event..your stinking rotten republicrat political 'competitions' (charades) have it perfectly arse-backwards...(cheerleaders/announcers primary, participants secondary) exposing a fraud about which you and the rest of your rip van winkle republicrats are apparently oblivious...(certainly silent)
...so to say someone 'will never be effective in [this rotten stinking $election that republicrat dolts call] politics' could be the best of compliments...as wise, honest people VERY VERY rarely achieve office...only your miserable puppets whom are no threat to this miserable exi$ting order...
...(yikes!!!...this mainefolk seems to have an awfully high opinion of him/her/it self for someone who cheerleads for puppets!) ;)
...btw, this year has been, by FAR, the most fun i've ever had in 'politics'...for many reasons...but if the LP had nominated ron paul and say, jesse ventura instead of johnson/weld...why i don't think my old heart could've stood it!.. ;)
Natural Citizen
08-24-2016, 06:26 AM
Time to resume Operation Rep Burn.
Natural Citizen
08-24-2016, 06:30 AM
Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.
Then why are you organizing for a leader who contends that he'd do the ultimate harm? Hm? Why? Why do you hate freedom, P3ter_Griffin?
I don't believe that you hate it. I really don't. I think that you just don't really understand it. Respectfully. Because if you did, then, you wouldn't be organizing for a leader whose open contention is to reject Individual Liberty's principal support. Which, btw, deeems his contention a patent rejection of the concept of Individual Liberty fully.
P3ter_Griffin
08-24-2016, 06:40 AM
Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.
Then why are you organizing for a leader who contends that he'd do the ultimate harm? Hm? Why? Why do you hate freedom, P3ter_Griffin?
It's all good. As long as we keep putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.
It's a given that the truth won't be welcomed by deceivers. Is what it is. Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Right?
If your idea of 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is 'putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.', I guess we just have different ideas of what 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is.
Natural Citizen
08-24-2016, 06:47 AM
If your idea of 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is 'putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.', I guess we just have different ideas of what 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is.
People need to see liberty things. They need to hear liberty perspectives. They need to understand what Individual liberty is. It's the only way they'll ever know when a liberal like the one you're organizing for is acting aggressive toward it.
P3ter_Griffin, you're in The Minority here. By a long shot.
What's kind of disturbing here is your response. You just demonstrated that you have no idea what you were arguing against when you quoted me here. No idea. Phhheeeew. Right over your head.
RonPaulInstitute made an excellent point earlier. I'll share it with you. He's correct in his assessment. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499750-This-year-I-will-be-donating-to-the-Ron-Paul-Institute&p=6293786&viewfull=1#post6293786
People like the two of you will never be effective in politics.
You say this as if it were a bad thing.
Johnson isn't evil.
Perhaps not by your standards. By mine, however, he most certainly is. I don't give a hoot about his intentions no matter how holy they may be. All that I have to go on are the things he says, particularly in the absence of any further knowledge. He says patently and dangerously objectionable things, any one of which indicates to me his lack of fitness for the post. Given the litany of his toxic spew, I shall happily bequeath him to you in my will.
Sure the guy is a little goofy and probably doesn't give the most concise interviews. But he's not a crook like the 2 major party candidates.
By his own words he would steal some of my rights. ∴ he is a thief.
QED
P3ter_Griffin
08-24-2016, 07:07 AM
People need to see liberty things. They need to hear liberty perspectives. They need to understand what Individual liberty is. It's the only way they'll ever know when a liberal like the one you're organizing for is coming for it.
P3ter_Griffin, you're in The Minority here. By a long shot.
What's even more comical is that you just demonstrated that you have no idea what you were arguing against when you quoted me here. No idea. Phhheeeew. Right over your head.
Being in the minority is not necessarily a bad thing.
I didn't come to where I am today, my understanding of liberty that is, from where it was when I first got attracted (no ****) to Ron. The greatest benefit I received from Ron is probably the community that formed to support him, that being RPF... I didn't do dailypaul or what have you. To me I came in with the thoughts 'who is going to feed the poor people if the government ain't', and shit like that. I really got my start wondering why the fuck some people would fly planes into a tower. Learned about American FP history from 'The Imperial Cruise' (turn of the 20th century) and skipped to learning about our dealings with the muslim world and about some of the groups. And so I saw the government as a monster, just not in the sense that I see it as a monster today. I don't know it for a fact, but I think for most people it has to be a progression. They are not going to wake up one day hating government after having loved government the last, short of traumatization by the government.
Natural Citizen
08-24-2016, 07:09 AM
By his own words he would steal some of my rights.
Some? Phhht. Try ALL of them. Once you reject property rights, you're effectively rejecting the entire concept of Individul Liberty.
This is a communist philosophy. Property rights, as you know, are the principal support for The Individual's right to both Life and Liberty.
Nils Dacke
08-24-2016, 09:03 AM
For many people, the world will end depending on the outcome of this election cycle. If you mean it more literally, that the world is literally going to end depending on the election outcome, it is a pretty safe bet we will have already been a group that got the axe... quite possibly literally.
Maybe it is an unpopular position here, but when the lesser X will prevent the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives, and as a cherry on top, will reduce tax and regulatory burden, I will gladly accept.
A government doing less harm is good. Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.
Why do you value higher voting on principle over the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives? Or is that not a consideration for you? It is just principled or not... you don't even look to see what the different outcomes would be?
I agree with you to a point about 'holding out your vote'. A couple percentage points tax decrease or a few regulations doesn't necessarily warrant caving. But when we are talking about lives? and 1000's of lives at that?
I'm sure your familiar with the golden rule, what would your wishes be if a foreign government was ravaging your land causing death and destruction with war, and the voters of that foreign government had a candidate with a path to victory that intended to end to the warfare? Would you hope that they would vote for him?
And didn't Castle say that he'd leave at the Gitmo prisoners in prison forever, because they had been in there to long? Does that principle extend to individual's held in domestic prisons? Is it a principle at all? Is it consistent?
You're putting it as a variant to the trolley problem. Passively allow the greater evil to speed down its path towards thousands of deaths and all kinds of misery, or actively cast a vote for the lesser evil to change the path into some lesser infringements of another group of innocent people. Ultimately, when are the consequences so sever our principles must be sacrificed? Yes, taken to the very extreme, I and probably most libertarians agree such conditions can exist. It would be dishonest to say anything else. Inversely, there's no point in rejecting a candidate for the tiniest of flaw or deviation from what we percieve as a 100% non-aggresing stance.
With that said, are the consequences involved here remotely close to justify abandoning the principles? Is Johnson/Weld all one could realisticly hope for, with just a few flaws? No. I too feel the horror of all the misery that American interventonism has created. My country is under enormous strain from the burden put upon us by the huge inflow of migrants and refugees, and I have no problems imagine what sufferings the middle east is having. I would most certainly wish for anything or anyone that would ease the conflict as soon as possible if I'd be unfortunate enough to having been born into the region. Taken at face value, i do believe most people intuitively wants to save lives when put against some theoretical principles, the same way people wants to pragmatically save the 10 lives in the trolley problem than just 1 life and a principaled set of ethics. Let's be clear about what's at stake here though. The actual comparision isn't a thousand lives against lofty ideals and theoretical principles. It's thousands of lives now stacked against an unmeasurable more lives lost in the future.
What created this situation we have now to begin with? The disregard for those principles of self-ownership and individual liberty. Until those principles of freedom reigns, we will have war in one way or another and people will die or have their lives restricted. From direct violence to indirect economic suboptimal growth. The sacrifices of the outcome of this election cycle most probably will bring, yet how terrible they are, quickly diminishes when compared to the misery of all the coming election cycles where individual liberty still is a non-issue. The only relevant question must in the end be, do Johnson sway people into our philosophy of freedom? I don't think he is. Johnson is a symptom reliever, but he's not advancing any cure to the root causes. At the very essence of his campaign is the notion that your country can't be run on those principles, that they don't mean much to him at all and therefore shouldn't do to those he's pandering to. That's the message him constantly violating these principles sends. Johnson wakes up a sentiment of non-aggression already present in most people but he isn't swaying them to make it a principle to apply consistently making infringements of peoples rights still left to the arbitrary popularity of the present day for such actions.
When Johnson thinks it's morally justifiable to send armed men to combat people who won't bake cakes domestically, what says he one day can't apply the same justifications to send armed men to combat people abroad who are doing much worse things than merely withholding gay people their private services? From a libertarian perspective I see little moral difference. Sure, international wars are unpopular, and rightly so, but if that changes someone like Johnson has little ground to argue why it's wrong with no principles to fall back on, and i'm not sure he will even attempt it. Because that's what I feel the Johnson/Weld campaign is constantly signaling - "Hey, we want to extend the rights in areas we like, such as weed and LGBT, but we're much more reluctant to do the same to people we're not fans of - religious people, gun owners, smokers and so on." That's not a liberty message, that's merely self-interest and putting oneself above others in the rights department.
Could he still act as a 'gateway drug' to a principled liberty movement? Maybe, but not through himself or his campaign. Instead, we could use him. His campaign is sure to expose a lot of moderates to our views, and we can use it to further our causes, absolutely. But that depends on us supporting our cause, not Johnsons, having an active, viable movement - which takes all our efforts, resources and support aimed our own way. The last thing we should do then is to cave in to support a lesser evil. Just compare how the ancap community feeds off the broader influx to the libertarian camp, while still championing their own ideals.
Johnson for moderates, libertarians for libertarians.
Pro-Liberty Positions:
end the fed, return to gold standard
balance the budget through spending cuts
replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
abolish Dept. of Education
opposes all business subsidies
opposed TARP
opposed auto company bailouts
opposes Keynesian stimulus spending
opposed Obamacare
opposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bush
favors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid
opposes labor unions
wants to eliminate the minimum wage
opposes immigration restrictions/deportation
favors tree trade, opposes tariffs
opposes governmental regulation of internet
opposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spying
opposed Iraq and Libya Wars
opposes involvement in Syria Civil War
opposes involvement in Ukraine Civil War
favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
favors cuts in defense spending
supports 2nd Amendment
opposes War on Drugs
favors legalization of assisted suicide
Anti-Liberty Positions
favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays
favors smoking ban in private venues
Close enough
Pretty much. A "perfect Libertarian" would never run for office.
Occam's Banana
08-24-2016, 10:18 AM
Nah, the sjws at least mean well [...]
No they don't. They want power and they mean to have it - and use it ...
Their "social justice" bullshit is just rhetorical cover. They don't give a damn about "justice" of any kind.
Some of their dupes might, in a vague and mawkish sort of way, but they are just ballast.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions by useful idiots."
The LP is probably going to get the most votes ever and you want start over? :rolleyes:
Hell, no!! Onward and upward!! William Weld 2020!!
People like the two of you will never be effective in politics.
Oh noes!! Please doan' throw us in dat brier patch, Br'er Fox!!
Occam's Banana
08-24-2016, 10:47 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nils Dacke again.
You're putting it as a variant to the trolley problem. Passively allow the greater evil to speed down its path towards thousands of deaths and all kinds of misery, or actively cast a vote for the lesser evil to change the path into some lesser infringements of another group of innocent people. Ultimately, when are the consequences so sever our principles must be sacrificed? Yes, taken to the very extreme, I and probably most libertarians agree such conditions can exist. It would be dishonest to say anything else. Inversely, there's no point in rejecting a candidate for the tiniest of flaw or deviation from what we percieve as a 100% non-aggresing stance.
With that said, are the consequences involved here remotely close to justify abandoning the principles? Is Johnson/Weld all one could realisticly hope for, with just a few flaws? No. I too feel the horror of all the misery that American interventonism has created. My country is under enormous strain from the burden put upon us by the huge inflow of migrants and refugees, and I have no problems imagine what sufferings the middle east is having. I would most certainly wish for anything or anyone that would ease the conflict as soon as possible if I'd be unfortunate enough to having been born into the region. Taken at face value, i do believe most people intuitively wants to save lives when put against some theoretical principles, the same way people wants to pragmatically save the 10 lives in the trolley problem than just 1 life and a principaled set of ethics. Let's be clear about what's at stake here though. The actual comparision isn't a thousand lives against lofty ideals and theoretical principles. It's thousands of lives now stacked against an unmeasurable more lives lost in the future.
What created this situation we have now to begin with? The disregard for those principles of self-ownership and individual liberty. Until those principles of freedom reigns, we will have war in one way or another and people will die or have their lives restricted. From direct violence to indirect economic suboptimal growth. The sacrifices of the outcome of this election cycle most probably will bring, yet how terrible they are, quickly diminishes when compared to the misery of all the coming election cycles where individual liberty still is a non-issue. The only relevant question must in the end be, do Johnson sway people into our philosophy of freedom? I don't think he is. Johnson is a symptom reliever, but he's not advancing any cure to the root causes. At the very essence of his campaign is the notion that your country can't be run on those principles, that they don't mean much to him at all and therefore shouldn't do to those he's pandering to. That's the message him constantly violating these principles sends. Johnson wakes up a sentiment of non-aggression already present in most people but he isn't swaying them to make it a principle to apply consistently making infringements of peoples rights still left to the arbitrary popularity of the present day for such actions.
When Johnson thinks it's morally justifiable to send armed men to combat people who won't bake cakes domestically, what says he one day can't apply the same justifications to send armed men to combat people abroad who are doing much worse things than merely withholding gay people their private services? From a libertarian perspective I see little moral difference. Sure, international wars are unpopular, and rightly so, but if that changes someone like Johnson has little ground to argue why it's wrong with no principles to fall back on, and i'm not sure he will even attempt it. Because that's what I feel the Johnson/Weld campaign is constantly signaling - "Hey, we want to extend the rights in areas we like, such as weed and LGBT, but we're much more reluctant to do the same to people we're not fans of - religious people, gun owners, smokers and so on." That's not a liberty message, that's merely self-interest and putting oneself above others in the rights department.
Could he still act as a 'gateway drug' to a principled liberty movement? Maybe, but not through himself or his campaign. Instead, we could use him. His campaign is sure to expose a lot of moderates to our views, and we can use it to further our causes, absolutely. But that depends on us supporting our cause, not Johnsons, having an active, viable movement - which takes all our efforts, resources and support aimed our own way. The last thing we should do then is to cave in to support a lesser evil. Just compare how the ancap community feeds off the broader influx to the libertarian camp, while still championing their own ideals.
Johnson for moderates, libertarians for libertarians.
Suzanimal
08-24-2016, 10:54 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nils Dacke again.
Covered.
specsaregood
08-24-2016, 12:20 PM
Hell, no!! Onward and upward!! William Weld 2020!!
Its sadly amusing that in the space of a few years we have gone from running fairly "radical" libertarians as Republicans in order to get them elected, to running moderate Republicans as Libertarians in order to get election welfare and ballot access or something.
undergroundrr
08-24-2016, 01:07 PM
You're putting it as a variant to the trolley problem...
Johnson for moderates, libertarians for libertarians.
Wow, it's nice to hear somebody make a reasoned and civil critique of Johnson instead of calling everybody cultural Marxists and property grabbers. You're ABSOLUTELY right about Johnson for moderates. Thank you! Finally somebody gets it. He is not playing to Ron Paul Forums.
It sounds like you're talking about Johnson as though he's on an educational campaign. No, Ron Paul was on an educational campaign. Johnson is truly trying to form realistic political coalitions in a bid to change the visibility and status of the LP. A successful political candidate CANNOT preach ironclad libertarian principles in America in 2016 and have any success whatsoever.
Gary Johnson tells progressives about the NAP on national TV. He also told Eric Bolling why black lives matter on national TV. He's also told hardcore libertarians he supports public accommodation in principle. This tells me he's an honest guy who is not playing to an audience. He's actually challenging everyone he encounters, especially libertarians to not be too comfortable in their particular ideological shell.
The easily triggered will not support Gary Johnson. They and the trumpies will start a new thread on RPF about every Johnson "misstep" to bob at the top of the forum along with the trump support threads.
But off of RPF, in the wide world, those moderates who are open to short-term practical thinking probably like hearing Johnson say he'll read a trade deal before he signs it, that he wants to work in concert with establishment democrats and republicans at the top level, that there might be a need for a government role in pollution control in a corporatist economy.
He's gained such traction that Bill Kristol felt he needed to field McMullin to make damn well sure we don't have a viable non-neocon party in 2020. I'm very, very sad that seems to be working. I wish it bothered others here also. Regardless, I say great job Gary Johnson.
P3ter_Griffin
08-24-2016, 02:16 PM
You're putting it as a variant to the trolley problem. Passively allow the greater evil to speed down its path towards thousands of deaths and all kinds of misery, or actively cast a vote for the lesser evil to change the path into some lesser infringements of another group of innocent people. Ultimately, when are the consequences so sever our principles must be sacrificed? Yes, taken to the very extreme, I and probably most libertarians agree such conditions can exist. It would be dishonest to say anything else. Inversely, there's no point in rejecting a candidate for the tiniest of flaw or deviation from what we percieve as a 100% non-aggresing stance.
So what you are saying is, sometimes you should vote for the lesser of evil. Why is this not such a case? And is your metric the standard bearer? Someone who holds their nose when you do not is 'letting perfect be the enemy of good', and someone who casts their vote when you will not is 'appeasing moderates'? What is your metric, where is that line? Is it based off of lives, issues, what?
There is literally no support for his poor policies here. No one has said we should start championing smoking bans and co2 taxes. How do you expect we would get any of his moderates over here to be moulded when we are not actively engaging the community that supports him, and were one show up by chance it would very much appear this is a board that supports Trump-- the members that is. What reason would they have to stay to listen to what we have to say?
To me this is much less about growing the movement, although when I think about it it could very well function that way (the presence of liberty members helping GJ supporters learn the ropes of activism), it is about preventing harm.
If we do look at Gary's positions, I frankly don't know them well, but is he not indeed pushing issues that are not main stream? End the Fed? I'm tempted to look back through the candidates RPF has supported over the years to see how 'close enough' was close enough in the past. But it is a waste of time, as is continuing this discussion.
Some? Phhht. Try ALL of them.
That may be true, but I can only go on what I have heard and read. Besides, it is irrelevant whether it is one right or all of them because the moment you concede the one, you have in principle conceded them all.
If Johnson were the perfect candidate in my eyes save for his expressed intention of removing the 2A from the Constitution, he would likely not have my vote.
Once you reject property rights, you're effectively rejecting the entire concept of Individul [sic] Liberty.
In truth, yes. But in Theire minds, not necessarily. People come to believe all manner of idiocies.
At some point, truth becomes less important than what people believe to be true. Here I speak in purely pragmatic terms.
This is a communist philosophy. Property rights, as you know, are the principal support for The Individual's right to both Life and Liberty.
Perhaps more broadly stated, it is a criminalistic, despotic authoritarian philosophy. At its heart, it is little different from the caprice-driven kings of yore, not to mention emperors such as Caligula.
Nils Dacke
08-24-2016, 05:12 PM
Wow, it's nice to hear somebody make a reasoned and civil critique of Johnson instead of calling everybody cultural Marxists and property grabbers. You're ABSOLUTELY right about Johnson for moderates. Thank you! Finally somebody gets it. He is not playing to Ron Paul Forums.
It sounds like you're talking about Johnson as though he's on an educational campaign. No, Ron Paul was on an educational campaign. Johnson is truly trying to form realistic political coalitions in a bid to change the visibility and status of the LP. A successful political candidate CANNOT preach ironclad libertarian principles in America in 2016 and have any success whatsoever.
Gary Johnson tells progressives about the NAP on national TV. He also told Eric Bolling why black lives matter on national TV. He's also told hardcore libertarians he supports public accommodation in principle. This tells me he's an honest guy who is not playing to an audience. He's actually challenging everyone he encounters, especially libertarians to not be too comfortable in their particular ideological shell.
The easily triggered will not support Gary Johnson. They and the trumpies will start a new thread on RPF about every Johnson "misstep" to bob at the top of the forum along with the trump support threads.
But off of RPF, in the wide world, those moderates who are open to short-term practical thinking probably like hearing Johnson say he'll read a trade deal before he signs it, that he wants to work in concert with establishment democrats and republicans at the top level, that there might be a need for a government role in pollution control in a corporatist economy.
He's gained such traction that Bill Kristol felt he needed to field McMullin to make damn well sure we don't have a viable non-neocon party in 2020. I'm very, very sad that seems to be working. I wish it bothered others here also. Regardless, I say great job Gary Johnson.
Those were kind words to start off with. Thanks! I have nothing against Johnson running his campaign to his audience, in no way is it bad that he makes moderates choose him over their usual choice of lesser of two evils. The fewer people caving in to politicians to the authoritarian side of themselves, the better. I just don't believe it will further the cause towards my (our?) side of Johnson by supporting him in compare to investing ourselves and voting for something closer to us. The marginal value of a vote does decrease with every extra one, and we're most probably not gonna be the tip of the scale when if we even are to weigh in things as the 5% funding threshold.
I have grown to understand over the years that you Americans tend to use the concept of distinguishing between educational and trying-to-win (or gain a base) campaigns. I just cannot accept the validity or relevance of such concept, and believe me I've tried. I do not believe anyone holding elected office have much room at all in the end to actually drive political change over the long run. Rather whatever room for change they have is a mere reflection of already occured changes in the electorate, and by then it's not so much room for change as a path they have to go down. Ofcourse factored in with some special and other interestes behind the curtains, but that's another issue. That's why i believe substantial political change can only come from how the candidates - and everyone else influencing people - change peoples minds, not by winning or losing the actual office one ran for.
So what you are saying is, sometimes you should vote for the lesser of evil. Why is this not such a case? And is your metric the standard bearer? Someone who holds their nose when you do not is 'letting perfect be the enemy of good', and someone who casts their vote when you will not is 'appeasing moderates'? What is your metric, where is that line? Is it based off of lives, issues, what?
There is literally no support for his poor policies here. No one has said we should start championing smoking bans and co2 taxes. How do you expect we would get any of his moderates over here to be moulded when we are not actively engaging the community that supports him, and were one show up by chance it would very much appear this is a board that supports Trump-- the members that is. What reason would they have to stay to listen to what we have to say?
To me this is much less about growing the movement, although when I think about it it could very well function that way (the presence of liberty members helping GJ supporters learn the ropes of activism), it is about preventing harm.
If we do look at Gary's positions, I frankly don't know them well, but is he not indeed pushing issues that are not main stream? End the Fed? I'm tempted to look back through the candidates RPF has supported over the years to see how 'close enough' was close enough in the past. But it is a waste of time, as is continuing this discussion.
You've read me correct, there aresome extreme situations where I'd be willing to accept a lesser of evils argument, the same way there are some few extreme situations where I'm willing to abandon the NAP. To make an extreme, obvious example: Candidate A running on the promise to nuke the whole world to oblivion, assuming he could actually go through with it if winning, and candidate B running on a completly ideal libertarian platform except for a gimmick that he'll once tax a randomly selected citizen 1￠. It would not be honest to pretend I'm not utilitarian in that sense that there comes an extreme point where the consequences outweigh, just for the sake of coming of as rhetorically stronger not having to conced such conditions exists. I just believe in the extreme importances of those princples to such extent I place such extreme situation much further away than what we've got with Johnson. This does not mean I'm refraining from saying I belive in the non-aggresion principle or - which i view as a subsection of it - reject the notion of lesser of two evils arguments, because for many if not close to most all actual real situations those extreme situations where I change is not near the table of discussion.
Exactly where such line is to be drawn, I believe has to be judged with such subtle nuances and complexity one could not capture nor convey it precise enough with the limits and stiffness inherent in language and words. Atleast I'm nowhere near being such wordsmith, maybe somewhere else someone has or one day will be able to make something of it. It's a judgment ultimatly up to each and every libertarian for themselves to make, I do not get from where you're reading in me thinking I'm above anyone else or being a standard bearer on this. I'm obviously not, but as with anything, I will ofcourse argue my views on the matter.
I simply believe our resources are wasted supporting this temporary prevention of harm, if we agree Johnson would be that in compare to the rest, when we could channelize it all into promoting an actual permanent solution to the sickness: principled libertarianism. I most certainly believe we should engage his audience, and I see no reason why we would have to pose or actually support Johnson to be able to do so. Ancap people have no problems seeking out minarchists to engage in debate and discussions, without caving in to support a small state. If don't wanna engage in this forum, then we'll just go wherever they are for those kinds of discussions and leave this a place for, as i understand the site mission, build support around fellow libertarians. Johnson will do just fine even without our support, shocking as it might be to think, but the principled libertarianism not so much if all of us already on board with it starts diverting our time and energy to promoting anything less.
Lastly, I'm as saddened as you in seeing the issues with Trump-supporters here. I see that as a problem not so much in regards to Gary Johnson newcomers but as to the board as such, seeing as - from what i understand - its rules and very purpose are against promoting candidates not having been vetted or has failed the process. What seems to be a very real issue here still, and which is why I think much care is needed when going into promote people rather than ideas, is how the support for Johnson turns into too easy of a dismissal of serious liberty issues. When one joins the supporting team of a candidate, it's nothing but human how our strong biases tends to take over and make us see past their very real errors. People might not support the worse parts of Johnson/Welds candidacy, but many most certainly downplays them in a way dangerous to our long time cause. Being new, i have nothing of value to say about how the scrutiny Johnson is under fares in compare to others earlier.
Natural Citizen
08-24-2016, 05:14 PM
That may be true, but I can only go on what I have heard and read. Besides, it is irrelevant whether it is one right or all of them because the moment you concede the one, you have in principle conceded them all.
If Johnson were the perfect candidate in my eyes save for his expressed intention of removing the 2A from the Constitution, he would likely not have my vote.
In truth, yes. But in Theire minds, not necessarily. People come to believe all manner of idiocies.
At some point, truth becomes less important than what people believe to be true. Here I speak in purely pragmatic terms.
Perhaps more broadly stated, it is a criminalistic, despotic authoritarian philosophy. At its heart, it is little different from the caprice-driven kings of yore, not to mention emperors such as Caligula.
You know, that's a pretty deep rabbit hole. Even in the most simplistic of language, the fact that it really is criminalistic in the most fundmental/confounding of ways opens up an entirely different context. Or dialogue. I mean, you get back to fundamental human relations there in terms of establishing the terms of lawfulness and legalities.
Anyway. Yeah. Agreed...
Johnson is truly trying to form realistic political coalitions in a bid to change the visibility and status of the LP. A successful political candidate CANNOT preach ironclad libertarian principles in America in 2016 and have any success whatsoever.
Then perhaps he should hold his yap on matters that result in auto-assassination. And how is it he picked an apparent gun-grabbing idiot as a running mate?
I don't care if he's Jesus tap-dancing across the seven seas. His rhetoric is lousy and it is the only thing on which most of us have to base our assessments. In favor of a basic wage for all, regardless whether they work? How, exactly, does that speak to liberty when men with guns are ordering you to open your wallet and start shelling?
He is no libertarian. He is either pandering or he is one of those milquetoasts who want freedom sans the costs of being free. Defend him all you like. Until someone demonstrates to me that he is either honest or not an imbecile, I will continue to hold him as a discount commodity.
The easily triggered will not support Gary Johnson.
Oh, boo-hiss. This brand of cheap innuendo is pure FAIL. Attempting to link those who are not so easily fooled by the inept or the snake-oilers with the generation of millennial pansies gets nothing better than a hard face-plant.
They and the trumpies will start a new thread on RPF about every Johnson "misstep" to bob at the top of the forum along with the trump support threads.
Perhaps it's just me, but I do not recall any particularly strong outpouring of love for the Donald here, neither have I seen too many Trump threads, period.... much less those sucking on Little Donald.
But off of RPF, in the wide world, those moderates who are open to short-term practical thinking probably like hearing Johnson say he'll read a trade deal before he signs it, that he wants to work in concert with establishment democrats and republicans at the top level, that there might be a need for a government role in pollution control in a corporatist economy.
You really don't seem to get the salient point underlying this whole political thing. It is not enough to do the sorts of things you list. You must also do no harm. All my saving of lives does not render excusable, much less valid, my jaunts into the darkness as a serial murderer or a child-rapist. The Prime Directive of proper political behavior is the same as that for the physician: DO NO HARM. I have yet to see a single candidate who satisfies the maxim. Men like Goldwater and Ron Paul met that requirement. One is long dead and the other too old.
I fully believe that one can come to certain practical arrangements without violating the Prime Directive. Perhaps I am mistaken. If so, then truly we have but one remedy left to us.
r3volution 3.0
08-24-2016, 06:14 PM
Osan,
You are given a magic button.
Pressing this button will have the following effects:
the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
federal spending will be cut by 43%
all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
the federal war on drugs will end
the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays
Do you press the button?
Origanalist
08-24-2016, 07:06 PM
Osan,
You are given a magic button.
Pressing this button will have the following effects:
the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
federal spending will be cut by 43%
all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
the federal war on drugs will end
the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays
Do you press the button?
Are you having visions r3v? Maybe you've been eating some of these buttons?
https://files.shroomery.org/files/09-37/277397087-DSC03316.jpg
r3volution 3.0
08-24-2016, 08:01 PM
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...
euphemia
08-24-2016, 08:22 PM
I would like to choose a Libertarian, but thanks to major party politics, he won't be on the ballot in every state. Libertarians have not put up a Libertarian for president, and I will never, ever, ever vote for Gary Johnson. He is not a Libertarian.
You know, that's a pretty deep rabbit hole. Even in the most simplistic of language, the fact that it really is criminalistic in the most fundmental/confounding of ways opens up an entirely different context. Or dialogue. I mean, you get back to fundamental human relations there in terms of establishing the terms of lawfulness and legalities.
And THAT is where men need to live their lives, minute by minute. The moment it is no longer important enough to be a basic and conscious decision element of every quantum of one's praxis, he has lost respect for his fellows in some manner and degree. This is not to say that one wrings his hands over every nit of his daily minutiae, for obviously our lives would become untenably bogged down with the overhead of what would clearly be a severe neurosis. But the general habit of consideration for others should be second nature. The more significant the decision at hand in terms of potential effects upon others, the greater should be the deliberation on the issue.
If I casually take a stick of my friend's chewing gum as I often do ( I despise chewing gum, just for the record), I need not sit for years contemplating the possible effects my choice may have upon my friend and, perhaps, world peace. But if I'm going to pull the trigger on my rifle, I damned better be certain that he is not downrange of my fire and that he is ready for the concussion of the muzzle blast, and so forth. And this should be a concern NOT because of the potential legal consequences, were I to accidentally send him to Jesus. This would seem as the most basic common sense, and yet the political devolution of humanity during the twentieth century, directly proportional to the rise of the modern nation-state, has rendered a vast plurality of humans either oblivious to it, or simply decayed to the point that they could care less.
Without those fundamentals as one's second nature, I confidently assert that the rest becomes tenuous at best and more likely meaningless because without that sound and unwavering foundation, the basics of human relations becomes essentially negotiable from one moment to the next. This is one area where the Framers of the Constitution erred wildly, what with incorporating instruments by which the most basic fabric of the society could be altered if "the people" so chose at some time in the future. I can call such a flaw nothing better than pure buggery. It is an error so profoundly idiotic as to leave me doubting that they could have made it accidentally.
Along with language skills, the basics of proper human relations should occupy center-stage in one's education such that by the time he graduates high school he is the functional equivalent of a PhD on the topic. Without such knowledge, the race of men is doomed and I offer the world as we find it this very hour as my proof positive of the central importance of such developed skill, as well as the proper attitude for approaching its daily application.
Furthermore, it is one thing for the dregs to show a profound absence of such knowledge. It is something very different when the highest elected officials of the nation think and behave with equally ham-fisted and blindly ignorant boorishness.
Natural Citizen
08-24-2016, 09:18 PM
Hear Hear. I was just thinking about this very thing when I was over in the religion section and they brought up Romans 13 to justify submitting to tyrants in the name of God. Particularly with regard to its relevance in that last sentence in your post here. I'm pretty sure I don't want to bow and submit to anti-moral men who have power and who use that power at their whim as far as what they arbitrarily think the common good means. I won't take the time to respond to all of this but I'll note it and agree. Good post, osan.
Osan,
You are given a magic button.
Pressing this button will have the following effects:
the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
federal spending will be cut by 43%
all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
the federal war on drugs will end
the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays
Do you press the button?
Without understanding the radiating effects, nope. Unlike many people, I am not THAT KIND of sucker. I am, unfortunately, a great big sucker for little girls. I have no power over them.
Your question presupposes the tacit "rightness" of the top five bullets. They certainly SEEM desirable, but unlike Faust I am leery of selling my soul to the devil.
P3ter_Griffin
08-25-2016, 01:58 AM
You've read me correct, there aresome extreme situations where I'd be willing to accept a lesser of evils argument, the same way there are some few extreme situations where I'm willing to abandon the NAP. To make an extreme, obvious example: Candidate A running on the promise to nuke the whole world to oblivion, assuming he could actually go through with it if winning, and candidate B running on a completly ideal libertarian platform except for a gimmick that he'll once tax a randomly selected citizen 1￠. It would not be honest to pretend I'm not utilitarian in that sense that there comes an extreme point where the consequences outweigh, just for the sake of coming of as rhetorically stronger not having to conced such conditions exists. I just believe in the extreme importances of those princples to such extent I place such extreme situation much further away than what we've got with Johnson. This does not mean I'm refraining from saying I belive in the non-aggresion principle or - which i view as a subsection of it - reject the notion of lesser of two evils arguments, because for many if not close to most all actual real situations those extreme situations where I change is not near the table of discussion.
Exactly where such line is to be drawn, I believe has to be judged with such subtle nuances and complexity one could not capture nor convey it precise enough with the limits and stiffness inherent in language and words. Atleast I'm nowhere near being such wordsmith, maybe somewhere else someone has or one day will be able to make something of it. It's a judgment ultimatly up to each and every libertarian for themselves to make, I do not get from where you're reading in me thinking I'm above anyone else or being a standard bearer on this. I'm obviously not, but as with anything, I will ofcourse argue my views on the matter.
The thing is, you weren't arguing your now stated views.
I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning
You now say that there are situations that call for the 'lesser of X evils reasoning'. But you did not address the issue as the topic, 'Johnson does not call for using the lesser of X evils reasoning, because:'. How is this supposed to be weighted in my head? 'I think that 1,000's of lives is reasoning enough, but Nils Dacke says it isn't'. I say 1,000's of lives you say nuking the world, how are we to decipher anything from that? You say it is right to vote for Castle but wrong to vote for Johnson yet your reasoning didn't follow through and you can provide no principles to verify the statement, am I wrong for questioning your views on the matter?
We could easily get to the point where Ron wouldn't pass the 'test'. He said he'd reduce waste and abuse in foodstamps and hope that in progression it would one day be ended, he called for the ability for young generations to opt out of SS, he called on stopping the spending on wars and spending it at home. The principled libertarian thing would be to advocate immediate end to foodstamps and SS. But we can see now, or at least it is how I perceive it, that he took these positions so that his reach would be greater and he could reach ears that otherwise may have been turned away by taking strictly the libertarian stance.
Now there is obviously great difference in the two. Ron spoke in a way to be palatable to the masses while Gary believes the things he says. But I think it brings into question the efficacy of straight truth versus 'luring them in' and then guiding them to the straight truth. I don't know the truth of the matter but it has been said to me that very little of Ron's support was libertarians. I have seen people on this forum say that they only voted for Ron because he was the one angry at the system, and that Trump has greater appeal to them than Ron.
In my mind it really comes down to an academia thing. Are we here because we want to educate or because we want change. Obviously the two have some overlap. I personally hate politics and am here because of a desire for change. While some people are happy to educate all their lives with little prospect for change. I think we need to make sure there is room for the exploration and execution of both.
If don't wanna engage in this forum, then we'll just go wherever they are for those kinds of discussions and leave this a place for, as i understand the site mission, build support around fellow libertarians.
My desire is for brethren not to get shat upon for advocating for a path that will minimize the harm caused by our government. And it really isn't even a big issue on the forum other than one guy and the trumpsters that like to play in his feces. And you decided to dip your toe in the ring on your first post. Who is the we'll? The reason I say this discussion is a waste of time is because you are not who I need to convince to support GJ and there is little evidence that this site is hospitable to activism to support him. The principles behind the discussion are important. I think it amounts to how we are going to treat fellow libertarians in their work towards achieving their desired objective. The project below I think would go a long way in solving that. Having that discussion right now is not important to me, so, welcome, and good day.
Natural Citizen
I am glad to see your interest in the Foundational Knowledge project. Obviously this is Bryan's baby so my view is just my own, but as I understand it, the way stuff will get done within the project is that- individual(s) will see something worth doing, start an effort to do so, and then other individuals who also see the worth in doing so would be free to help at their pleasure and the project manager's direction. I'm sure there would/will be some room for debate on the efficacy of a specific project, but I really doubt spamming the members of the project, after they have addressed your issue and respond with why they still see value in the project, would be tolerated. So if my understanding is correct you are acting counter to the project you state you support.
And it makes no sense. You have expended so much effort attacking/doubting the integrity of the principled libertarians who are knowingly supporting an unprincipled candidate because they see his government doing less harm than the alternatives while we have an abundance of unprincipled individuals supporting an unprincipled candidate because they support his unprincipled positions!
Natural Citizen
08-25-2016, 02:07 AM
@Natural Citizen (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=38270)
You have expended so much effort attacking/doubting the integrity of the principled libertarians who are knowingly supporting an unprincipled candidate...
So you agree that it's an unprincipled contention for a leader to send men from the government with guns to force me to relinquish my rights but it's a principled act to organize for him anyway? Is that what I'm reading here? LOL.
You're defning a principled libertarian as someone who would knowingly organize for a guy who openly contends that he'd send men from the government with guns to force them to relinquish their property....and you're defining unprincipled libertarians as those who object to it? http://spiritcompanion.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/rofl.gif
P3ter_Griffin
08-25-2016, 02:16 AM
So you agree that it's an unprincipled contention for a leader to send men from the government with guns to force me to relinquish my rights but it's a principled act to organize for him anyway? Is that what I'm reading here? LOL.
You're defning a principled libertarian as someone who would knowingly organize for a guy who openly contends that he'd send men from the government with guns to force them to relinquish their property....and you're defining unprincipled libertarians as those who object to it? http://spiritcompanion.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/rofl.gif
Your sobs are not even worth addressing at this point.
Natural Citizen
08-25-2016, 02:18 AM
Your sobs are not even worth addressing at this point.
Heh. Well. Take a poll. LOL.
Your sobs are not even worth addressing at this point.
Sobs? Your response is textbook of the variety offered where there is nothing else to offer. I think the questions are valid, yet you appear to be deflecting. Why?
undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 10:28 AM
I totally understand an uncompromising libertarian of a certain slant (probably paleo) not wanting to vote for or support Gary Johnson on principle.
It's a little harder to understand why they don't exhibit the same level of violent repugnance for trumplary. Supposedly it's because Johnson calls himself a libertarian. "trump will be trump." "Clinton will be Clinton."
Due in large part to the Kristol/McMullin incursion, at this point it doesn't look like Johnson will make the debates, so it doesn't matter much. In terms of electoral causation it never really mattered what anybody on RPF thought anyway.
In fact, after the Nazi cake thing it seems like many decided GJ was an establishment plant. These are some of the same people who say the establishment is run by Jews. How does that make sense? Gary just made Elie Wiesel bake a cake for Goebbels at gunpoint using the full armed forces of the federal government, including all our nuclear capabilities. He should appeal to stormfronters more than neocons.
I think it was euphemia who implicated Johnson is running for president on the LP ticket so he can line his pockets. Not sure how this works. Do LP candidates get some kind of special access to graft opportunities. It seems to me they get 1% of the vote and then get made fun of for 4 years. wash, rinse, repeat. Maybe he could springboard it to a book deal? I don't get it. I conclude Johnson is doing this because he really cares about freedom, perhaps not the tidy, thoroughly buttressed freedom derived from certain tracts, but definitely freedom.
He went for it this time. He fought pretty hard for the candidacy against some passionate competition. He picked a running mate who could help get the job done, make money and attract centers of influence instead of somebody who would make ancaps nod their heads in approval. Oh well, I think it's probably over, so NC, euphemia, osan, don't worry yourselves. The danger has passed thanks to Bill Kristol. Enjoy.
silverhandorder
08-25-2016, 10:33 AM
While Trump and Hillary are stuck in a titanic battle Gary is talking about smokes in restaurants.
jllundqu
08-25-2016, 10:54 AM
As easy as saying "This is a smoking establishment do you have a problem with that?" Yes = no hire. No = hire.
Why is this such a freaking hard concept for some to grasp???
//close thread//
euphemia
08-25-2016, 11:22 AM
I see Johnson saying he *opposed* a lot of things, but I don't see him sharing a plan by which he would *repeal* them. And then there is that whole gun thing. He said he would force Americans to run businesses the way he wants. He agrees with some gun control. He agrees with some wars. He thinks the EPA is a legitimate use of government, which is a further abridgement of rights. He has no plan to repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't said anything about the transfer from the fed to states and communities with regard to education. He has not said parents have the right to determine their children's educational pathway.
I keep waiting for him to say liberty stuff, but he just keeps talking socialism.
undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 11:36 AM
I keep waiting for him to say liberty stuff, but he just keeps talking socialism.
Something tells me you're not poring through Gary Johnson interviews so that you can post his "liberty stuff" to RPF.
euphemia
08-25-2016, 12:19 PM
I totally understand an uncompromising libertarian of a certain slant (probably paleo) not wanting to vote for or support Gary Johnson on principle.
It's a little harder to understand why they don't exhibit the same level of violent repugnance for trumplary. Supposedly it's because Johnson calls himself a libertarian. "trump will be trump." "Clinton will be Clinton."
Because those discussions were had months ago when there was still something of a choice on the Republican side. That's why I have stopped talking about it. I have been one of the few people here who actually know a little of Sanders' history, and if he had just said, "Let me tell you my story: I am a Jewish man who grew up in Brooklyn. There were places I was not allowed to live, and places I could not go. People called me names and bullied me in locker rooms. Then I went to the University of Chicago and I saw that black people were treated the same way I was treated in Brooklyn. I decided to do something about it. I was arrested for being part of a demonstration....." That story might have swayed people a little bit, and he might have won the nomination. But he did not do that.
During that time, the Republicans were duking it out, and the more Bernie talked, and the more we heard about superdelegates, the more it looked like Hillary would win the nomination. I think some people started looking at the array of Republican candidates to try to figure out who could beat Hillary.
So this has never been much of an idealogical election cycle. It has been more about personalities and power. I'm done talking about those things.
euphemia
08-25-2016, 12:25 PM
Something tells me you're not poring through Gary Johnson interviews so that you can post his "liberty stuff" to RPF.
I really am not. I am familiar with his sketchy investments, and he takes the opposite view on the liberty issues most important to me. I did watch a libertarian debate, and I didn't think any of them had a real liberty platform. I have lost interest and hope in the Libertarian party. They are basically warmed-over socialists who want to extend some entitlements to special groups and put the rest of us in jail.
r3volution 3.0
08-25-2016, 12:25 PM
Osan,
You are given a magic button.
Pressing this button will have the following effects:
the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
federal spending will be cut by 43%
all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
the federal war on drugs will end
the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays
Do you press the button?
Without understanding the radiating effects, nope. Unlike many people, I am not THAT KIND of sucker. I am, unfortunately, a great big sucker for little girls. I have no power over them.
Your question presupposes the tacit "rightness" of the top five bullets. They certainly SEEM desirable, but unlike Faust I am leery of selling my soul to the devil.
Are you saying that you wouldn't push the button even if the final effect (CRA extended to gays) were removed?
undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 12:26 PM
During that time, the Republicans were duking it out, and the more Bernie talked, and the more we heard about superdelegates, the more it looked like Hillary would win the nomination. I think some people started looking at the array of Republican candidates to try to figure out who could be Hillary.
I get it. Well, there are four choices now that affect election outcome.
1. Vote for Hillary. Fascism for at least 4 years.
2. Vote for trump. Fascism for probably a lot longer than that.
3. Vote for Johnson. Raise the profile of the LP a smidge.
4. Vote for McMullin. Sink the LP, help out the neocons.
If the CP were actually trying, I'd say voting for Castle is a fifth option. As it is, a Castle vote is equivalent to writing in Ron Paul, Vermin Supreme or Giant Meteor.
euphemia
08-25-2016, 12:28 PM
I would not. I don't think Johnson can do any of that. He was not able to advance liberty in New Mexico with such a small population, so it is doubtful he will be able to do it in Washington. He has expressed in an interest in expanding some government and taking away individual rights. It doesn't matter how much of my own money I get to keep when I face the threat of government because I value my Constitutional freedoms.
Are you saying that you wouldn't push the button even if the final effect (CRA extended to gays) were removed?
My words were clear.
r3volution 3.0
08-25-2016, 02:17 PM
My words were clear.
No, not really, that's why I asked for a clarification.
You implied that even the libertarian reforms listed might have unintended bad consequences, and that you'd therefore not support them.
That being quite insane, I couldn't believe that's what you actually meant, hence the request for clarification.
NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-25-2016, 02:42 PM
I get it. Well, there are four choices now that affect election outcome.
1. Vote for Hillary. Fascism for at least 4 years.
Hillary is guaranteed 8 years in office if she wins.
GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:49 PM
Hillary is guaranteed 8 years in office if she wins.
I believe that Hillary will probably be permanently hospitalized with some neurological disease (maybe Parkinson's?) within 3 years. So I do not believe she is guaranteed 8 years in office. She will probably be dead in 5 to 6 years.
P3ter_Griffin
08-25-2016, 07:55 PM
Sobs? Your response is textbook of the variety offered where there is nothing else to offer. I think the questions are valid, yet you appear to be deflecting. Why?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is this ultra principled candidate you are waiting for a labor protectionist?
And I would set in place strict and non-negotiable controls on immigration. There would be no H1B nonsense. No wandering across the border. No hiring ditch diggers from Turkey because nobody in country is willing to do it for 10 francs/hour. If the market demand is that high, employers would be required to meet the labor demand in the honest way by raising wages and perhaps prices, rather than scraping the barrel of shit holes like Turkey. If digging ditches is that important, people will pay to have them dug. Otherwise, the ditch digging businesses will become extinct and the diggers will have to find other ways to occupy themselves. There are no guarantees in this life.
could be a trump slogan, 'no guarantees!'.
No, not really, that's why I asked for a clarification.
You implied that even the libertarian reforms listed might have unintended bad consequences, and that you'd therefore not support them.
That is not what I wrote. I wrote that I would not support anything I did not sufficiently understand. My precise words were:
Without understanding the radiating effects, nope.
For Christ's sake... you'd think I was writing in Greek. In fact, lets try some Greek:
Χωρίς την κατανόηση των ακτινοβολεί επιπτώσεις, όχι
That being quite insane, I couldn't believe that's what you actually meant, hence the request for clarification.
I would say you need to get into a better habit of reading what is written and paying some attention to it. I was not vague in the least.
Your apparently gratuitous use of "fascism" doesn't help you here in the least.
Given that strong nationalism is a key element of fascism, your assertion regarding Clinton passes no muster. Given the key element of racism, I would say that at best you have not made your case with respect to Trump.
As for point 3, do you mean to imply that "rais[ing] the LP profile a smidge" would be the defining characteristic and result of a Johnson presidency? Seems you are setting your sights pretty damned low.
I cannot speak to point the fourth because I have no idea who that is.
I get it. Well, there are four choices now that affect election outcome.
1. Vote for Hillary. Fascism for at least 4 years.
2. Vote for trump. Fascism for probably a lot longer than that.
3. Vote for Johnson. Raise the profile of the LP a smidge.
4. Vote for McMullin. Sink the LP, help out the neocons.
If the CP were actually trying, I'd say voting for Castle is a fifth option. As it is, a Castle vote is equivalent to writing in Ron Paul, Vermin Supreme or Giant Meteor.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.