National Review: Gary Johnson Should Court the Right

[NewRightLibertarian]

I don't know about his personal positions

Then maybe you should refrain from commenting if you don't know what you're talking about? Oh well, guess it never stopped you before.

[Smitty]

I wonder what is going to happen to National Review when Trump wins. I imagine they have to be hemorrhaging subscribers at an alarming rate.

I would bet anything that The National Review is being subsidized. Who would pay money to read their crap?,..especially when it's blasted all over the internet for nothing.

It's just one of the more flagrant examples of neocon propaganda that the world is subjected to.

[r3volution 3.0]

Then maybe you should refrain from commenting if you don't know what you're talking about? Oh well, guess it never stopped you before.

If you read the comment to which I was responding (which was not yours, incidentally) you'll find that I was rebutting the claim that "both the party and the candidate are more liberty minded than any other group." That is false, at least with respect to the party and its platform. Castle may or may not disagree with those unlibertarian planks of his party's platform, I don't know. Do you? Is he on the record repudiating them?

[r3volution 3.0]

Once again, completely loses the foundational principle of private property rights and that without that, there is no liberty. Looks like you would benefit reading the article in my sig.

Hello Trump supporter.

Q. Do any of Trump's policies (e.g, QE, TARP, socialized medicine, PATRIOT Act) violate "the foundational principle of private property rights"?

[r3volution 3.0]

Evangelicals, especially the Biblically literate ones, overwhelmingly despise Trump. But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom, especially as attacks on religious liberty intensify.

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

[Smitty]

I think it's hilarious that the neocons went fishing for Trump voters using Gary Johnson as bait,...and all they caught was Bernie-Bros.

[69360]

The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

[Smitty]

The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

Any spin doctor who can attract Communists without alienating Libertarians is earning his pay.

[r3volution 3.0]

The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

To get both Bernsters and NeverTrumpers on board, he has to make the campaign primarily about how bad Trumpllary is.

That's not to say he should repudiate any aspect of his libertarianism, but libertarian doctrine need not be the centerpiece of the campaign.

"They're corrupt, I'm the real anti-establishment candidate" etc

[Natural Citizen]

But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.

[LatinsforPaul]

Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not, as you mindlessly and obtusely reference, an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.

Very well said. You should send it to Trump.

[69360]

Any spin doctor who can attract Communists without alienating Libertarians is earning his pay.

Got that right. Maybe Johnson can find somebody.

To get both Bernsters and NeverTrumpers on board, he has to make the campaign primarily about how bad Trumpllary is.

That's not to say he should repudiate any aspect of his libertarianism, but libertarian doctrine need not be the centerpiece of the campaign.

"They're corrupt, I'm the real anti-establishment candidate" etc

Seems like a plan. Use Nixon's line. I am not a crook. Except Nixon was, Johnson isn't.

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru

But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not, as you mindlessly and obtusely reference, an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.

Very well said. You should send it to Trump.

I sent it precisely to whom it was intended.

[NewRightLibertarian]

If you read the comment to which I was responding (which was not yours, incidentally) you'll find that I was rebutting the claim that "both the party and the candidate are more liberty minded than any other group." That is false, at least with respect to the party and its platform. Castle may or may not disagree with those unlibertarian planks of his party's platform, I don't know. Do you? Is he on the record repudiating them?

I don't think anyone in the Constitution Party would bend over for Hillary, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney so the statement was correct. Enjoy shilling for your CFR sell-out ticket. You are an example of Trump derangement syndrome at its worst.

[Tywysog Cymru]

The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

Progressives and Berniebros already have a candidate tailor made for them, Jill Stein.

[69360]

Progressives and Berniebros already have a candidate tailor made for them, Jill Stein.

Maybe. They could possibly be persuaded no?

I have no idea what the GJ campaign's strategy is, but it makes sense for them to try and capitalize on this. These people are shouting down Wasserman and Clinton at the convention for the scheming and deception. Possibly they aren't as much issue based but just want somebody honest. Sanders is and Johnson is.

[undergroundrr]

The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

I agree. But I don't think he needs libertarians (there are 52 of us in America, and 47 are worried about cake) or right wing conservatives. Although libertarian-leaning folks at large will be useful, people with 50,000 posts at RPF couldn't possibly be less relevant. He needs moderate republicans and moderate democrats. Jill Stein can have the militant Bernie-ites and it won't make a bit of difference.

It may not have worked politically for Rand Paul to be the sensible, inclusive guy during the Republican primaries, but Johnson even at his goofiest is going to appear absurdly, irresistibly sane and benevolent during the terrifying chaos of the general election.

[euphemia]

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

What single issue would that be?

[undergroundrr]

What single issue would that be?

It doesn't matter. Could be pro-life, could be gay marriage, could be immigrants.

[euphemia]

It doesn't matter. Could be pro-life, could be gay marriage, could be immigrants.

Seriously. What single issue? You can't throw labels around without some proof. I'm not a single issue voter, or I would have declared for someone by now. There is only one candidate that comes down on the right side of the Constitution in the race right now. Whether he will be on the ballot in my state or not is still at issue.

[Natural Citizen]

Seriously. What single issue?

I think it was Freedom itself they were reducing to a minimal "issue." I popped my mouth off about what I thought of the pompous position, though.

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru

But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not, as you mindlessly and obtusely reference, an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.

Does that about cover it for you, euphemia? Do you have a clearer understanding of the pompous spew now? It's rather cut n dry if you ask me. By Ye fruits and all of that happy jazz. You know how that goes, I suppose. Heh.

[undergroundrr]

Seriously. What single issue? You can't throw labels around without some proof. I'm not a single issue voter, or I would have declared for someone by now. There is only one candidate that comes down on the right side of the Constitution in the race right now. Whether he will be on the ballot in my state or not is still at issue.

Seriously, it doesn't matter. It could be any from that menu. Or it could be cakes. Just as long as someone can latch onto that one thing and discount the balance of the platform.

Johnson doesn't need the stunted spawn of Rothbard's bizarre paleo manipulation scheme. They can put their hopes on trump and the apocalypse.

[euphemia]

What are you afraid of? What single issue? Johnson is not a principled man, so he will not get my support, ever. He does not support individual liberty for all, just for himself.

True libertarians believe in the right to life. True libertarians believe in the right for people to believe and practice their own faith in daily life. True libertarians believe in equal protection under the law. A law that doesn't apply to all is not a right.

[undergroundrr]

What are you afraid of? What single issue? Johnson is not a principled man, so he will not get my support, ever. He does not support individual liberty for all, just for himself.

True libertarians believe in the right to life. True libertarians believe in the right for people to believe and practice their own faith in daily life. True libertarians believe in equal protection under the law. A law that doesn't apply to all is not a right.

No, pro-life is not a standard libertarian plank. I'd love it to be, but it's not. The rest of your argument has to do with cake, right?

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Most of them are going back to Hillary in a steady trickle, but I agree with Gary staying the course, trying to go after angry Berniebots. There are far, far more of those than scorned Jebheads or Cruz missiles. Even capturing a small percent of Berniebros is better than chasing what little remains of Glenn Beck's audience.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

I think now is primetime for Johnson's team to court disillusioned Bernie supporters, like others have mentioned.

Personally not a huge Johnson fan, but a 3rd choice is refreashing, and I would love to see a 3 person general election debate.

[Natural Citizen]

The rest of your argument has to do with cake, right?

Some folks call an openly aggressive rejection of Man's right to Liberty itself "cake." That would be those who lack an understanding of what surmises the right to Liberty itself. These are the people who know nothing of Liberty at all. And their shallow assessment and dialogue with regard to the critical nature of the situation is pompous, to say the least.


Those others, however, who do understand what Individul Liberty is and whom respect its benefits, correctly call it what it is. They call it forcing an Individual to relinquish his property to another Individual by way of the end of a barrel of a government gun. Some people, undergroundrr, understand that property rights are an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, Man's right to Liberty itself.

[Natural Citizen]

No, pro-life is not a standard libertarian plank.

Given your rejection of the critical nature of the fundamental principle of property in that you're led to minimize it to "cake", it is understood that you may also fail to recognize property's fundamental contribution to the legitimacy of the right of Life. Perhaps you may not believe that, but favor the terms of controversy from a perspective of party politics. I'm not sure what you believe, really. But planks are the works of Men, undergroundrr. They come in many shapes and sizes, too. And the works of men aren't often products of the fundamental moral foundation that establishes the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. In fact, they seldom are. You've projected one example of such an instance here in your statement. And you'd do well to pull this standard plank from your eye before it causes an infection that spreads.

[undergroundrr]

Some folks call an openly aggressive rejection of Man's right to Liberty itself "cake." That would be those who lack an understanding of what surmises the right to Liberty itself. These are the people who know nothing of Liberty at all. And their shallow assessment and dialogue with regard to the critical nature of the situation is pompous, to say the least.


Those others, however, who do understand what Individul Liberty is and whom respect its benefits, correctly call it what it is. They call it forcing an Individual to relinquish his property to another Individual by way of the end of a barrel of a government gun. Some people, undergroundrr, understand that property rights are an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, Man's right to Liberty itself.

I agree with you about property rights but I disagree about your assessment of the situation. And your invective is uncharitable, but that's neither here nor there.

The cake answer was very unpleasing to libertarians like me. But it was absolutely the right answer to a question that should never have been asked. I'm sure you've read his clarification later and found it uninspiring like I did (https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohn...53109454754364 if you haven't). But he had the sense to run the LP gauntlet and to do it in a way that absolutely wouldn't sink him in the general. Rand Paul's answer about the CRA is still plaguing him to this day and any question about discrimination is a gotcha question. Gary Johnson pissed off people who don't matter with his cake answer. In the process he took his first step into a world where he could really make a difference in this election.

Gary Johnson thinks discrimination sucks. He's right. He might think it's even worse than somebody violating your property. You and I would definitely tilt on the side of property on that one. He's also clear that he doesn't want people forced to draw swastikas on cakes, and couldn't force them to if he wanted to because of "the courts, common sense, common decency and the First Amendment." Seriously, if you haven't read that facebook post, your intellectual honesty should compel you to do it. If you have read it and dismissed it out of hand, then it might be time to revisit it after months of towing this line.

It really doesn't matter. Gary Johnson doesn't need you and me who parse every statement for ideological confirmation. He needs the broad swathe of Americans who will be looking for somebody who represents intelligence and reason in the face of two major party candidates that scare the $#@! out of them.

[undergroundrr]

duplicate