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

[JohnM]

This blog post is a pretty detailed look at where Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle compare, based on their answers to "I Side With"

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

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

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

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

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

more at

http://themarmaladesandwich.blogspot...rian-than.html

[Suzanimal]

That was pretty cool. Thanks!

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

I would've given Castle a point here.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/03/politi...ion-interview/

[euphemia]

good morning everyone

[Origanalist]

good morning everyone

Good morning.

[Origanalist]

This blog post is a pretty detailed look at where Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle compare, based on their answers to "I Side With"




more at

http://themarmaladesandwich.blogspot...rian-than.html

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

[fedupinmo]

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

[specsaregood]

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

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

[helmuth_hubener]

learn more about combat rolls

Hard tack?

[euphemia]

Yes, the spelling obscures the meaning just a bit.

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

[LatinsforPaul]

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

[Natural Citizen]

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

Yep. Clearly. Castle is far more principled.

[jllundqu]

I like the Constitution Party except for the fact that they are 100% Christian. The exclusivity of such a stance flies in the face of the very document they claim to uphold.

From the Party Platform:

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

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

[jllundqu]

Hell just look at their position on pornography... WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE IT!

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

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

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

[specsaregood]

From the Party Platform:

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

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

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

[jllundqu]

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

Suit yourself.

[specsaregood]

Suit yourself.

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

[William Tell]

Hell just look at their position on pornography... WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE IT!



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

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

[jllundqu]

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

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

[specsaregood]

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

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

[jllundqu]

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

Again I disagree. From their platform:

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

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

[helmuth_hubener]

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

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

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

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

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

[jllundqu]

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

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

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

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

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

[dannno]

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

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

Wtf.. that's pretty interesting to hear.

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

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

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

[euphemia]

Two things: there are a lot of unbelievers in the Constitution party. They don't turn anyone away.

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

[helmuth_hubener]

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

And I with thee.

[kahless]

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

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

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

[euphemia]

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

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

[euphemia]

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

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

[r3volution 3.0]

They're very similar and both highly libertarian.

Here are the key disagreements from a libertarian perspective:

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

C: No

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

+1 Gary

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

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

J: No, all customers deserve to be treated equally

+1 Castle

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

C: No

J: Yes

+1 Castle

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

C: No

J: Yes

+1 Castle

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

C: No

J: Yes

+1 Castle

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

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

J: Yes

+1 Gary

Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy?

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

J: Hurt

+1 Gary

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

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

C: Yes

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

+1 Gary

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

C: Yes

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

+1 Gary

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

C: Decrease

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

+1 Gary

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

C: Yes

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

+1 Gary

Should working illegal immigrants be given temporary amnesty?

C: No

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

+1 Gary

Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security?

C: No

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

+1 Gary

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

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

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

+1 Gary

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

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

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

+1 Gary

Do you support the legalization of Marijuana?

C: I support decriminalization not legalization

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

+1 Gary

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

Either is a reasonable choice for a libertarian to support.

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

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

[euphemia]

Thanks for taking a look, r3volution 3.0. I hope you can see why some liberty thinkers do not appreciate Johnson's views as much as we do Castle's. Really, thanks for taking a look.