Gary Johnson opposed to NAFTA type corporatism free trade, would have veto'd NAFTA

[HardyMacia]

Johnson answers the question about NAFTA/free trade at 23:35-25:00 in the interview.

Gary Johnson: So much of the legislation we passed isn't really free market at all. It's touted as free market. When the reality is it ends up to be corporatism where one business gets and advantage over another. This is something I witnessed this as governor of NM, I'd like to think I'd veto that kind of legislation. I was always looking at business legislation from the standpoint of having it affect everyone equally as opposed to big business getting bigger than they already are.

[sailingaway]

OK, I'll look at that, thanks. I'd like to see how he ties it to NAFTA and his previous statements on NAFTA. And whether he addresses the international body nature rather than representativeness of NAFTA, or is just talking about how you have to be on a list of 'trusted trade partners' to drive a truck here, for example. I know he didn't do this interview specifically to address my point, but that is what I am trying to answer.

[specsaregood]

So Gary Johnson flip-flopped on NAFTA? Is that what the OP is saying?

It is tough to believe that he would have "vetod" it since he is reported to have been for it as late as 2000 and it was passed in the 90's. So he was FOR it after it passed. But now we are to believe that he would have been against it if he had power at the time?

[sailingaway]

Johnson answers the question about NAFTA/free trade at 23:35-25:00 in the interview.

Gary Johnson: So much of the legislation we passed isn't really free market at all. It's touted as free market. When the reality is it ends up to be corporatism where one business gets and advantage over another. This is something I witnessed this as governor of NM, I'd like to think I'd veto that kind of legislation. I was always looking at business legislation from the standpoint of having it affect everyone equally as opposed to big business getting bigger than they already are.

OK, it gives me something to look into, but the OP isn't correct, he didn't say he would have vetoed NAFTA, he said he couldn't speak specifically to NAFTA but he hoped he would have vetoed bills that were corporatism, not free trade. He did not at all get into the international body/non representativeness and I am actually left with the impression that he recently had this concern explained to him and really doesn't have a deep understanding of it. Long term, meaning for my opinions of him in the future, that leaves the possibility he would find the hell out about it and he may be sincere about corporatism, that I'll look at his record to see.

However, it is diametrically opposed to his statement to daily caller in 2010 that one of the ways he disagreed with Ron was with Ron's opposition to NAFTA, given that those points (US self determination and corporatism) are the entirety of Ron's opposition, as I understand it.