Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 100

Thread: Never Gary Johnson: He’s Not Conservative and Not Even All That Libertarian - James Spiller

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    I don't. He doesn't want to legalize drugs harder than marijuana. He's said as much numerous times.
    But he does want to end the federal drug war.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    But he does want to end the federal drug war.
    Yes, just like he wants to end the IRS and install a sales tax - and the enforcement agency of that sales tax will be named ___.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33

  6. #34
    Come, people. Are we really going to let Spiller and the National Review define reality for us?

    I know information on this stuff is hard to find on the net. But it isn't impossible to find at least a somewhat unbiased view. For example...

    http://www.riograndefoundation.org/d...rotections.pdf

    While the recent spending binge is not unique; in fact, rapid growth in government has been the rule and not the exception in New Mexico. With the exception of the eight years of the Johnson Administration (FY 1995-FY 2003), New Mexico’s political leaders have failed to create the conditions necessary to allow entrepreneurs to generate economic growth.
    While it would be easy to make spending restraint (or the lack thereof) a partisan issue, that is not really the case. Personal dedication to spending restraint and economic/political considerations often factor into the equation. As figure 2 illustrates, Gary Johnson, a Republican and New Mexico’s Governor from 1995-2003, was the most fiscally-responsible of the state’s last four governors, but Democrat Bruce King (1991-1995) was far more frugal than either Republican Garrey Carruthers (1987-1991)or current Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (2003-present)
    Spending under Governor Johnson was effectively restrained to allow the government to grow just a bit faster than inflation and population rates combined each year. By way of comparison with Governor Richardson, spending has increased during the last four years by more than it did for Gary Johnson’s entire two terms ($516.62 million versus $448.00 million).
    Unfortunately, while Johnson kept spending growth at reasonable levels, needed reforms in education, health care, and in state budget processes were stymied by the Legislature.8 Johnson’s tax cuts were also denied repeatedly by the Legislature. So, while spending growth was restrained, New Mexico’s government remained systemically-flawed and its tax and budgeting systems escaped reform. Clearly, strong leadership from the Executive Branch is not enough to generate long-term spending restraint since time is on the side of special interests and those who would delay needed reforms.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-25-2016 at 08:24 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Come, people. Are we really going to let Spiller and the National Review define reality for us?

    I know information on this stuff is hard to find on the net. But it isn't impossible to find at least a somewhat unbiased view. For example...

    http://www.riograndefoundation.org/d...rotections.pdf
    Sorry but I need to spread some reputation around... But THIS ^^.

    He's not perfect, he might not really be a hardcore conservative or hardcore libertarian. He is however not a crony. He is a guy who has a heart. He has a record as a two term governor and it's certainly not a bad record! He did well as a governor, he might have been able to do better as a dictator but we don't want dictators, do we ?
    "I am a bird"

  8. #36
    I guess that must make him the perfect candidate for the oxymoronic LP.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Yes, just like he wants to end the IRS and install a sales tax - and the enforcement agency of that sales tax will be named ___.
    Huzzah privatized taxation :P
    The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.

    RON PAUL







  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Something good always comes out of voting.

    It's usually a sticker but sometimes there's candy.
    Or both....
    The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.

    RON PAUL







  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Yes, just like he wants to end the IRS and install a sales tax - and the enforcement agency of that sales tax will be named ___.
    It should only be applicable to corporate entities. Which would remove all forms of intrusion out of the private sphere. Corporations might be people, as in; they are legal entities, they are however not individuals.

    Now, as far as how realistic it is that such a system will replace the current, lets just say I don't have high hopes. I do however consider this to be far more realistic than no taxes at all.

    I will say this, it is not purely libertarian but. When you incorporate you avoid certain risk to yourself, by creating a legal entity. This would provide a counterweight against that.. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it more free ? Certainly. Anyone would be free to start a business for themselves without incorporating but they would be personally liable for debts etc.

    I don't know if this is what Johnson believes but I think this is a good way to have a sales tax to fund the necessary parts of government.
    Last edited by luctor-et-emergo; 05-25-2016 at 09:17 AM.
    "I am a bird"

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by afwjam View Post
    I ask you how is Johnson going to perform if he got in the debates? What evidence do you have that the other two would not make the debates?
    Johnson/Weld are hard to ignore since they have mainstream credibility being former governors and are actually being included in some polls now, in the end I don't think Gary will make the debates as the bar is set too high at 15%. Petersen has no name recognition or background so it is pretty easy to understand why he wouldn't but McAfee I don't think will be taken seriously given his reputation and legal issues. If you're not going to win and probably not going to make the debates then maximizing the vote for the future of the party seems like the best course of action even if there are a candidates your views are more in line with. I doubt Gary or Weld would run in 2020 so there could be matching funds up for grabs for some candidate.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    Sorry but I need to spread some reputation around... But THIS ^^.

    He's not perfect, he might not really be a hardcore conservative or hardcore libertarian. He is however not a crony. He is a guy who has a heart. He has a record as a two term governor and it's certainly not a bad record! He did well as a governor, he might have been able to do better as a dictator but we don't want dictators, do we ?
    Yes, and the fact that he wants to continue having "humanitarian" wars, doesn't want to close ANY military bases, won't take drones off the table, advocates for unlimited immigration and seems to believe that abortion is up to the mother, up to the point that he/she can live outside of the womb, may make him a "libertarian" heartthrob.



    But, they certainly are not the attributes of a liberty candidate.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    But, they certainly are not the attributes of a liberty candidate.
    He certainly isn't getting my vote.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yes, and the fact that he wants to continue having "humanitarian" wars, doesn't want to close ANY military bases, won't take drones off the table, advocates for unlimited immigration and seems to believe that abortion is up to the mother, up to the point that he/she can live outside of the womb, may make him a "libertarian" heartthrob.



    But, they certainly are not the attributes of a liberty candidate.
    Good point on the intervention stance.

    Article from 2012
    http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/04/12/g...f-his-element/

    In an interview with the Daily Caller, presumptive Libertarian Party nominee for president Gary Johnson tries heartily to describe his foreign policy…or at leasta foreign policy. Plainly put, the man is confused.He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.” He wants to cut military and defense budgets by 43 percent, but only reduce national security spending to 2003 levels, “and just wring out the excess.”
    Johnson is putting forth an image of himself of a former New Mexico
    The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.

    RON PAUL







  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yes, and the fact that he wants to continue having "humanitarian" wars, doesn't want to close ANY military bases, won't take drones off the table,
    You are serious ?

    Foreign Policy and National Defense
    The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.
    Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
    Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
    As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded.
    (from his site)

    And you're saying he's a warmonger ? As opposed to Donald - Let's kill terrorists' families - Trump. Give me a break. He may not be a foreign policy genius like Ron Paul but I don't see how you could throw a fit about this.

    advocates for unlimited immigration
    He doesn't.

    Immigration
    Having served as Governor of a border state, Gary Johnson understands immigration. He understands that a robust flow of labor, regulated not by politics, but by the marketplace, is essential. He understands that a bigger fence will only produce taller ladders and deeper tunnels, and that the flow of illegal immigrants across the border is not a consequence of too little security, but rather a legal immigration system that simply doesn’t work. Militarizing the border, bigger fences, and other punitive measures espoused by too many politicians are all simplistic “solutions” to a problem caused by artificial quotas, bureaucratic incompetence and the shameful failure of Congress to actually put in place an immigration system that matches reality.
    Governor Johnson has long advocated a simplified and secure system of work visas by which willing workers and willing employers can meet in a robust labor marketplace efficiently and economically. Aspiring immigrants would undergo a background check, pay taxes and provide proof of employment.
    Making it simpler and efficient to enter the U.S. legally will provide the greatest security possible, allowing law enforcement to focus its time and resources on the criminals and bad actors who are, in reality, a relatively small portion of those who are today entering the country illegally.
    Again, he's not saying anyone can come, he's talking about work visa's and checks on possible immigrants.

    Do you want a quota on migration ? What else would you want quotas on ? I don't think quotas in general are a liberty thing, are they ?

    seems to believe that abortion is up to the mother
    I disagree with him on that point.

    up to the point that he/she can live outside of the womb, may make him a "libertarian" heartthrob.
    I agree. However, many people who call themselves libertarians disagree with that. I don't think it's a debate worth having as long as the Libertarian party doesn't hold any real power.

    As Governor Johnson did support a ban on late term abortions.
    (Also from his issues page. )

    But, they certainly are not the attributes of a liberty candidate.
    If you actually read his issues page, it's not bad. Worth holding your nose for imo. If he were to be the Libertarian nominee.
    Last edited by luctor-et-emergo; 05-25-2016 at 11:34 AM.
    "I am a bird"

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    You are serious ?
    If she was, she'd have stopped spamming these misrepresentations after she was called out on them the first time.

    You can see for yourself how responsible she is in laying off the spamming of the disproven.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  19. #46
    Someone please convince me that voting for Gary Johnson is so far from voting for libertarian principles in the scope of things.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by farreri View Post
    Someone please convince me that voting for Gary Johnson is so far from voting for libertarian principles in the scope of things.
    They would if they could. They wish they already did.

    But they'll keep spamming what little they've got, mainly this NR spin, and probably townhall parroting it and whoever else parrots it as a sort of backhanded confirmation, until they're blue in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by farreri View Post
    Someone please convince me that voting for Gary Johnson is so far from voting for libertarian principles in the scope of things.
    They are mostly Trump supporters.. and I get their argument. Immigrants are largely socialist, so increasing immigration will increase the number of people voting socialist and increase the percentage of people on welfare and other government services. So instead of voting on principle for a small government libertarian, they support a nationalist authoritarian who will *maybe* stem the tide of immigration.

    It is funny to see them try and make Gary Johnson out to be a big government guy while simultaneously supporting Trump..
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    They are mostly Trump supporters.
    You think most of the anti-Gary people here are covert Trump supporters? Not doubting that. Just making sure I'm understanding you.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    But, they certainly are not the attributes of a liberty candidate.
    Even though they've been roundly refuted by actual stated policy stances and other hard evidence many times now for you. Sorry, nobody has anything to offer that exonerates GJ while simultaneously feeding your hunger for trump confirmation bias.

    Gary Johnson isn't trump. He isn't Tom Tancredo. He isn't Duncan Hunter. He isn't Nikita Krushchev. Sorry. GJ is not an appropriate candidate for your views.

    But he's a really decent candidate for the kind of people who would tend to take part in something called Ron Paul Forums.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by farreri View Post
    You think most of the anti-Gary people here are covert Trump supporters? Not doubting that. Just making sure I'm understanding you.
    I didn't say covert.. Most of the anti-Gary people here are open Trump supporters.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I didn't say covert.. Most of the anti-Gary people here are open Trump supporters.
    Oh, ha ha!

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I didn't say covert.. Most of the anti-Gary people here are open Trump supporters.
    Screw douchebag Johnson and tyrant Trump; I'll have neither of them. The same goes for the commies running on other tickets as well.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    You are serious ?

    (from his site)

    And you're saying he's a warmonger ? As opposed to Donald - Let's kill terrorists' families - Trump. Give me a break. He may not be a foreign policy genius like Ron Paul but I don't see how you could throw a fit about this.
    So, you're advocating for a lesser of 3 evils thing? That's your choice, of course, but that's not what makes one a liberty candidate.

    He doesn't.
    Yeah, he does. Requirement would be to get a work visa and a social security card. That's what he says, right here.




    Again, he's not saying anyone can come, he's talking about work visa's and checks on possible immigrants.
    From what I've seen, he's for letting anyone come who gets a work visa and for some reason, a social security card. Why a social security card? Would that mean they would get SS benefits? Beyond that, I have not seen anything that would limit the sheer number of "immigrants".

    Do you want a quota on migration ? What else would you want quotas on ? I don't think quotas in general are a liberty thing, are they ?
    If you want to keep your nation, yes. If one doesn't care, I guess, no. Did you read this? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/...vate-property/

    I disagree with him on that point.

    I agree. However, many people who call themselves libertarians disagree with that. I don't think it's a debate worth having as long as the Libertarian party doesn't hold any real power.
    It may be alright for libertarians, sure. But, should a person who believes like that be offered the label of "liberty candidate" and provided the associated benefits?

    (Also from his issues page. )
    Yes, but that is when the baby could survive outside of the womb. From what I've seen, he's alright with abortions at any time up to that point. If you have seen something contrary, please post it.

    If you actually read his issues page, it's not bad. Worth holding your nose for imo. If he were to be the Libertarian nominee.
    It will be everyone's own choice. But, a liberty candidate, he ain't.

    Note: This "libertarian" makes the point that Gary and Rand are very much alike, with exception to the following:
    Drug Policy
    Gay Marriage
    Foreign Policy
    Immigration
    Abortion

    Seems like quite a bit to me.

    https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...and-rand-paul/
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 05-25-2016 at 12:45 PM.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    If she was, she'd have stopped spamming these misrepresentations after she was called out on them the first time.

    You can see for yourself how responsible she is in laying off the spamming of the disproven.
    How did I misrepresent? If anyone is doing that, it would appear to be you.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6223204
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I didn't say covert.. Most of the anti-Gary people here are open Trump supporters.
    Danno, it's not that. It's about honestly looking at Johnson and determining whether he deserves being tagged as a liberty candidate by this forum. I never thought Trump should be, but I also don't think Johnson merits it either. I mean, look at his positions honestly, Danno.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    I am not enamored with any of the top 3. Philosophically I align with Petersen. I like McAffe because he shoots right from the hip. I think Johnson is the most electable.

    I am prepared to support any of them if fr no other reason than breaking the 2 party system. But if history is any indicator, the young rabid libertarians will not pull together after the primary. 2/3 rds will slink off and put, proudly refusing to vote for the lesser evil who won the nomination.

    Which makes pandering to them pointless.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Danno, it's not that. It's about honestly looking at Johnson and determining whether he deserves being tagged as a liberty candidate by this forum. I never thought Trump should be, but I also don't think Johnson merits it either. I mean, look at his positions honestly, Danno.
    I graded him a B-, shooting from the hip, after reading a bunch of anti-Gary Johnson propaganda.

    After listening to him talk for 3 hours on the Joe Rogan podcast, I give that performance a strong B+.

    He has some issues, but he understands liberty and economics pretty well and has a foreign policy that is pretty similar to Ron Paul's. You can pick it apart and find differences, but for the most part they are very similar on the whole.

    If you take him in his entirety with all his past statements he is probably in the B to B- range, but that is still an acceptable candidate to support, especially when you consider the great things that can be done with the libertarian party in the future if he hits enough votes. I'd actually like to see him emphasize more of the things he has in common with the left, if anything, and get a bunch of disaffected Sanders supporters to vote for him so they don't vote for Hillary.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    So, you're advocating for a lesser of 3 evils thing? That's your choice, of course, but that's not what makes one a liberty candidate.
    In a way. I'd rather have Ron Paul. He isn't running. I'd rather have McAfee, in case he doesn't win, I am in fact arguing Gary Johnson supports our values enough to consider him. Even though it may be more based on outcome than on governing principles.

    Yeah, he does. Requirement would be to get a work visa and a social security card. That's what he says, right here.





    From what I've seen, he's for letting anyone come who gets a work visa and for some reason, a social security card. Why a social security card? Would that mean they would get SS benefits? Beyond that, I have not seen anything that would limit the sheer number of "immigrants".
    That's not a passport, is it ? And wouldn't it be fair to pay SS benefits to people if they paid into it ? Truly the underlying problem here is that these things need to be individualized. Immigrants are not the problem, the system is.

    If you want to keep your nation, yes. If one doesn't care, I guess, no. Did you read this? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/...vate-property/
    No I didn't read that. I get those points. I'm not entirely enthusiastic about uncontrolled immigration myself either. I just don't see a problem with immigration in principle. If businesses need workers, they should be able to bring them in. There should be no unfair advantages, if they stay for some time, cause no problem, are productive, they can apply to stay. If they lose their job, they go back. Simple system, lots of countries in the world employ it. I don't want to say that this is what GJ means but it's more or less the idea I get from what he is saying.

    It may be alright for libertarians, sure. But, should a person who believes like that be offered the label of "liberty candidate" and provided the associated benefits?
    I am pro life. It's not a major issue for me politically because people are too divided on it. I much rather spend energy changing people on this issue in my own social environment. It's more effective, trust me.

    Yes, but that is when the baby could survive outside of the womb. From what I've seen, he's alright with abortions at any time up to that point. If you have seen something contrary, please post it.
    I haven't seen anything to the contrary but stick with me for a moment. If you ban abortion after a fetus is viable outside of the womb, and codify it into law, cast it into concrete, etch it into whatever.. You know what I mean, science is ever progressing and soon it will be possible to 'grow' a fetus in a 'tube'.. Which in that case would mean, no more abortions, am I right ?
    "I am a bird"

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by farreri View Post
    Someone please convince me that voting for Gary Johnson is so far from voting for libertarian principles in the scope of things.
    Volutaryists are very close relatives to libertarians.


    Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

    http://voluntaryist.com/
    Ron claims to be one.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •