Gary Johnson NYT op-ed

[69360]

It's very reasonable. If this spreads around enough, he could maybe make one of the later debates?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/op...-way.html?_r=0

[Brian4Liberty]

...

Gary Johnson: Take a Deep Breath, Voters. There Is a Third Way.

The America I know wasn’t on the television screen on Monday night. My America is about the freedom to make choices, pursue your dreams and use your skills as entrepreneurs. It is about having more choices than just red versus blue.

Americans want to be able to choose a president who is capable of reason, of learning from failures, and of telling them the truth, even when it hurts. Most of all, they want to choose a president who will adhere to the Constitution and will make government live within its means.

I’m offering that choice. I wasn’t part of the presidential debate on Monday, but as Americans listened in dismay to the so-called major parties’ candidates, Google searches for “Gary Johnson” skyrocketed.

I’m the third candidate — the leader of the Libertarian Party. My name will be on every ballot alongside that of my running mate, Bill Weld, who like me was a twice-elected Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. Contrary to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, Bill and I don’t believe the United States is a polarized nation.

We don’t deny that there are very real tensions on the fringes, and we can’t simply ignore those tensions. But when it comes down to the basics, most Americans really aren’t that far apart.

Our kids are better educated than ever before. Our technology enables entrepreneurship and transparency. Our military is second to none, as it should be. But our two-party political system is an entirely different story. Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it’s a terrible way to try to run a country. We’re the alternative — and we’re the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground.

People might call us fiscal conservatives. Like most Americans, I believe that government does too much and costs too much. As governor of New Mexico, I vetoed more than 750 bills and reduced government involvement in business, better known as “crony capitalism.”

Some would call us social liberals. I’ve been vocal in criticizing the disparity in the treatment of black Americans by the police. I want reform in our criminal justice and sentencing systems. “Three strikes” laws and mandatory minimums have put the United States among the world leaders in incarceration. Treating drug use and abuse as crimes, rather than health issues, has put far too many Americans behind bars.
...
Hillary Clinton’s and Donald J. Trump’s proposals call for much more spending. Both parties are responsible for our unsustainable fiscal problems: President George W. Bush nearly doubled our national debt, to $10 trillion from $5.7 trillion. President Obama is on track to double it again.

Second, we would protect the Constitution and civil liberties and stop treating immigration as a bad thing. In the difficult case of abortion, I support a woman’s right to choose. I’ve long supported civil liberties, including marriage equality and freedom from mass surveillance.

Given the way it has served as both a launching pad and a crash-landing site for Republican presidential prospects, immigration was strangely absent from Monday’s debate. Neither the Republican-controlled Congress nor President Obama has done anything to fix the dysfunctional immigration system. Deporting millions of noncriminal undocumented immigrants and building a wall, as Mr. Trump proposes, are ludicrous ideas.

A majority of Americans can actually agree on a solution. We would allow those immigrants who are here without documents, but with otherwise clean records, to come forward, pay taxes, undergo a background check and legally reside in the United States. We’d eliminate categories and quotas on immigration, and border enforcement would be devoted to keeping out real criminals and would-be terrorists.

Third, we would offer free trade to all nations, but limit military intervention to when our nation is attacked. We would honor all treaty obligations and pursue strategic alliances that made our country safer.

Mrs. Clinton wants to continue a muddled mix of intervention, regime change and bombing campaigns. That approach brought us Syria, Iraq, Libya and failed nation-building in Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve clear objectives, with a well-drawn distinction between defense and futile interventions. And our troops deserve authorization from Congress for their activities overseas, an important detail that has fallen by the wayside.
...
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/op...third-way.html

[undergroundrr]

It's very reasonable. If this spreads around enough, he could maybe make one of the later debates?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/op...-way.html?_r=0

Great op ed. Heinous comment section.

[dean.engelhardt]

Great op ed. Heinous comment section.

Wow, no kidding. I heard the two parties were paying people to post comments, but the one below must win some kind of bonus:

Louie Brennan
Michigan 5 hours ago
At the end of the day, the only reason to vote for a third party candidate (as I did in 2000, to my regret), is to use the vote as a means of personal expression, rather than as a civic responsibility. This way of looking at the vote has become distressingly widespread, ignoring what the true purpose of the ballot is.

Because at the end of the day, it all boils down to this: If you cannot stomach the thought of Hillary Clinton in the White House, you are morally obligated to do what you can to put Donald Trump there. And vice versa. If you don't like either, tough. The only thing standing between Trump and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is HRC. Trump's the only barrier to Hillary in there. So pick the one you like least, and vote for the other one. it's not about you, it's about what happens to the country over the next four years. Hillary or Donald?

[Brian4Liberty]

A majority of Americans can actually agree on a solution. We would allow those immigrants who are here without documents, but with otherwise clean records, to come forward, pay taxes, undergo a background check and legally reside in the United States. We’d eliminate categories and quotas on immigration, and border enforcement would be devoted to keeping out real criminals and would-be terrorists.

Gary Johnson is dead wrong on that, but we'll see if it brings him more voters.

[undergroundrr]

Gary Johnson is dead wrong on that, but we'll see if it brings him more voters.

About the majority of Americans or the idea itself?

[euphemia]

Our kids are not better educated than ever before. They are not.

[osan]

Our kids are better educated than ever?

That alone disqualifies him. It's opinions such as this that indicates in bright neon that Johnson ain't playing with a full deck.

[Anti Federalist]

Great op ed. Heinous comment section.

The worst.

That's why freedom fails.

[Anti Federalist]

We don’t deny that there are very real tensions on the fringes, and we can’t simply ignore those tensions. But when it comes down to the basics, most Americans really aren’t that far apart.

He's wrong about that as well.

Just based on the comments following that op/ed, indicate to me that I am as far separated from most of my fellow AmeriKans, as being on the dark side of the moon.

I have no common ground or common purpose with these people whatsoever.

[dean.engelhardt]

He's wrong about that as well.

Just based on the comments following that op/ed, indicate to me that I am as far separated from most of my fellow AmeriKans, as being on the dark side of the moon.

I have no common ground or common purpose with these people whatsoever.

Take heart. 60% of the people are unfavorable towards Trump and HRC. It has been published that a Clinton PAC is spending millions of dollars to make Johnson look bad online. If I felt those comments portrayed what the country is about, I'd have to leave.

[puppetmaster]

To me the only 3rd option is rebellion......hope we survive.

[Brian4Liberty]

About the majority of Americans or the idea itself?

About a majority of average Americans agreeing on a solution. All of the special interests agree with Johnson, including the establishment, but I'd wager that a plurality if not a majority of Americans would go for a moratorium on new immigration for right now. And the reasons would vary, but it would include jobs, traffic, lack of affordable housing, decline in wages, government spending concerns and potential terrorism.

[Brian4Liberty]

Gary Johnson is dead wrong on that, but we'll see if it brings him more voters.

Actually, let me correct that. We won't see if it brings him voters. More than any other election in recent history, a vote for the Libertarian will have much less to do with the candidate or his positions, and everything to do with not voting for Trump or Hillary.

[undergroundrr]

He's wrong about that as well.

If MSNBC/Fox/NYT and general divisive rhetoric from TPTB were taken out of the picture, he would be right.

That comment section is the direct result of how badly Clinton is threatened by Johnson. His approach is unique. Since libertarianism has been mostly regarded as a right-wing concept, we may not see something like this again.

[fisharmor]

Our kids are better educated than ever?

That alone disqualifies him.

Education in general is much better than it ever has been, and it runs an incredibly large gamut.

Let's look at what is probably relevant: were people even capable, 30 or 40 years ago, of having half-intelligent conversations about whether vaccines were a good idea?
How likely was it to find someone who was philosophically against the notion of the constabulary?
How many people bothered asking any questions about the Waco siege? For those who bothered asking, how many got valid data?

It used to be that if you wanted hard information on any of a variety of libertarian topics, you had to read actual hardback books written by authors the world in general considered cranks. Now this information is pushed in your face on social media.

Hell, it even goes to hobbies. Wasn't that long ago if you wanted to learn woodworking, TV gave you two options: St Roy with his electricity-doesn't-exist approach, and Norm, and after watching a couple of his old shows, it's a major miracle the man has all his fingers. Go check out what YouTube has to offer on the subject, if you haven't already.

It's not just youth. Everyone in general is better educated, on just about everything. We have a long way to go, sure - and in particular, it would be nice to make more people who cared about being educated. But for those of us who do, it IS better.

[osan]

Education in general is much better than it ever has been, and it runs an incredibly large gamut.

I must respectfully disagree. Have you been paying attention to what is going on the schools, K-12 and the colleges?

Let me point out also that there is a difference between education and training. Much of the training is pretty good, some excellent. The education, however, is deplorable - and that is being unjustifiably kind.

Let's look at what is probably relevant: were people even capable, 30 or 40 years ago, of having half-intelligent conversations about whether vaccines were a good idea?

Yes, and with better sophistication than is evidenced by the up and coming generations.

How likely was it to find someone who was philosophically against the notion of the constabulary?

Thus far, your examples speak to matters of political fashion, rather than developed intelligence.

How many people bothered asking any questions about the Waco siege?

A lot more of my generation and generation X than these sad "millennials".

For those who bothered asking, how many got valid data?

Define "valid". Back in that day I had endless conversation of a high-caliber on precisely these issues. The medium was called "usenet", and while there was a lot of trollery even in those days, particularly by the douches representing the anti-gun crowd, there was huge erudition evident on many fronts. There is today as well, but it appears to be issuing from the remains of my aging generation, with far less from the millennial panty-wastes.

It used to be that if you wanted hard information on any of a variety of libertarian topics, you had to read actual hardback books written by authors the world in general considered cranks. Now this information is pushed in your face on social media.

Information != knowledge. There was PLENTY of information available on the net even in 1990. I was there. The mechanisms have changed and the average quality of the data appears to have possibly deteriorated due to the shift in internet populations. Back in the late 70s and early 80s, just about the only people on the internet were scientists and engineers. When I started netting, which consisted mainly of IRC and some pulling of files and email, there were exactly 32 internet sites in the world - double of what had been at the very beginning. We did a lot in those days in terms of remote communications; met lots of people from all over.

Hell, it even goes to hobbies. Wasn't that long ago if you wanted to learn woodworking, TV gave you two options: St Roy with his electricity-doesn't-exist approach, and Norm, and after watching a couple of his old shows, it's a major miracle the man has all his fingers. Go check out what YouTube has to offer on the subject, if you haven't already.

There were other avenues as well, but your point is nonetheless well taken. There is indeed a lot of very good content on the net today. But that does not mean that people were lesser-educated back in the stone age. I am a mechanical engineer, and pretty decent. Yet, I consider myself a sad hack in comparison to the men who taught me and those with whom I was acquainted long ago. Those men were engineers! They forgot things most of today's engineers wish they knew.

It's not just youth. Everyone in general is better educated, on just about everything.

Not to be difficult, but it is important to know that better informed doesn't mean better educated. There is a lot of value in good training and being well-informed. But those are insufficient to "education", which subsumes these aspects.

[fisharmor]

Not to be difficult, but it is important to know that better informed doesn't mean better educated. There is a lot of value in good training and being well-informed. But those are insufficient to "education", which subsumes these aspects.

Well my "education" is nonexistent by traditional measures. I have enough credits almost for a master's but scattered over three different topics so it amounts to bupkiss.
Whether this opinion correct or not, I do not consider education to be something possible to give.
One takes an education when the opportunity arises, or one does not.
What I see today which I did not see as a teenager, is that there is actual synthesis going on. People making efforts to connect the dots. People given the opportunity to take.

I was compelled to start considering careers at the traditionally appointed time, at age 16, in 1990. I was given the standard battery of tests and given a career with which I could best serve society.
Engineer was not the main choice. Engineer was not even second choice.

There's a joke I've heard... a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are put into separate prison cells with enough water and cans of food to last for 30 days, but are not given a can opener.
30 days later, the mathematician has used the cans as an abacus to figure out Pi to 1000 places, but is dead from starvation.
The physicist has figured out the exact trajectory required to throw the cans against the wall to break them open and is alive and healthy.
And the engineer is gone.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that you belonged to the one career that still valued synthesis of ideas when you were studying for it. I would guess that the reason engineers have been declining in popularity in the US is because the fracturing of knowledge has continued unabated - taking us to the point where we are now, where one "scientist", a self-proclaimed expert in his field, can write a single paper on climate change which, on the basis of his being an expert in his one fractured field of study, can have worldwide implications.

And the guy who invented spreadsheets didn't get a dime for it.

The reemergence of the importance of synthesis of knowledge is what I am celebrating. Yes, children are still threatened with adult poverty if they don't memorize random insular data like the preamble to the US constitution without ever considering its content. They are still raised to be factory workers in a country which hasn't had any factories for 20 years.

But at least now there's a chance for them. And the more of them there are that end up unemployed and surfing the 'net all day, the better the chance that they'll actually learn something.

[osan]

Well my "education" is nonexistent by traditional measures. I have enough credits almost for a master's but scattered over three different topics so it amounts to bupkiss. [sic]

I don't give a tinker's damn about credentials. I've known people with nothing more than high school diplomas who were brilliant and PhDs not worth a damn.

Whether this opinion correct or not, I do not consider education to be something possible to give.

Well, no. But the "teacher", if he is good, helps the student to discover his innate talents and interests, then helps develop those into actual skills and other knowledge. THAT is what the process of education is. The rest is training pursuant to the goal of education.

One takes an education when the opportunity arises, or one does not.

Opportunity doesn't arise: it exists part and parcel with every moment of one's life.

What I see today which I did not see as a teenager, is that there is actual synthesis going on. People making efforts to connect the dots.

That's always going on with some. For others, rarely if ever.

People given the opportunity to take.

I MADE my own opportunities, especially in "education".

I was compelled to start considering careers at the traditionally appointed time, at age 16, in 1990. I was given the standard battery of tests and given a career with which I could best serve society.

??? Nothing of the sort ever happened with me. I was clueless and had to figure it all out for myself.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that you belonged to the one career that still valued synthesis of ideas when you were studying for it. I would guess that the reason engineers have been declining in popularity in the US is because the fracturing of knowledge has continued unabated - taking us to the point where we are now, where one "scientist", a self-proclaimed expert in his field, can write a single paper on climate change which, on the basis of his being an expert in his one fractured field of study, can have worldwide implications.

Engineering is less popular because uninformed opinion has no place there. There is no place for "feelings", but mainly only hard facts. If you are to design a crankshaft for a high-speed internal combustion engine of a given general specification, the optimal result will have to live within an envelope of tolerances. This requires hard skills for which most people either have insufficient aptitude, of no interest. Why do so many people study the touch-feely "arts"? Because those require little to no real skill and discipline. One can get be rather well via artful spew. Sociology is a prime example. Social "science" is actually no science at all, or what some have called "soft science", which IMO is still not science.

I maintain that "education" in America sucks ass in ways to appall the intelligent and decent man.

[osan]

To me the only 3rd option is rebellion......hope we survive.

The right answer and thread winner. Thankyouverymuch.

Let us remember that "rebellion" can take many forms. We need not immediately reach for the rifles, though I suspect it may in fact one day prove the only option to capitulation left to us.

[helmuth_hubener]

Education in general is much better than it ever has been, and it runs an incredibly large gamut.

Resources are better, fisharmor.

Outcomes are not.

Actually, I wouldn't say altogether better, but certainly more plentiful. And that plentitude does bring more high-quality with it, as well as lot and lot more low-quality trash. And for the independent, self-determined man, his ability to be discerning serves him well and he will be able to find the best of the resources.

But when you say:

Everyone in general is better educated, on just about everything.

I completely disagree. This sense of "education" you're talking about is well-nigh meaningless. It is, in fact, a psuedo-literacy that comes from effortless information access. Will people be even more "educated" when everyone has reality-enhancement-overlay contact lenses with micro-gesture interfaces and so can carry on a competent conversation on absolutely any obscure topic under the sun, discretely scanning the Wikipedia article on the stained glass work of Roger Bissière as they make a comment to you about how his tragic glaucoma reminds them of Beethoven's deafness. Oh, how educated!

No, fisharmor, by any sane metric -- such as: How many of you people can read? -- our kids are getting an extremely, extremely, tragically poor education. As a whole. Again, the independent, self-determined men, such as you and I, will simply go out and take it, seize it for ourselves. And we have a wealth of resources to do it. But that doesn't mean that "everyone is better educated". When the literacy rate, the functional literacy rate, the mathematical proficiency rate, have all plummeted to extremely low levels, much, much lower than in the past: no, that does not mean everyone is better educated.

But, it's OK: they can all just use calculators, now! And Siri can read everything to them.

No Prob-lem!

[fisharmor]

??? Nothing of the sort ever happened with me. I was clueless and had to figure it all out for myself.

Did nobody else get a battery of tests for a guidance counselor to review and tell you what you'd be good at?
I know guidance counselors have been $#@!ing with kids before me, because my chiropractor relates that (at least 20 years before I was in school) he was told he'd never amount to anything and not to bother with college.

No, fisharmor, by any sane metric

I'm fine with you disagreeing. But your "sane metrics" were all conceived and implemented by the state.
When the founders decided to start this whole experiment, it never occurred to anyone to keep tabs on who can read and how well.

I judge a person's education by how well he can take available facts and use them to solve problems.
No actual problem in the history of anything has ever been solved by administering a standardized test.
The things you - and others - tend to complain about WRT education are all results of these sorts of tests.

[misterx]

He's wrong about that as well.

Just based on the comments following that op/ed, indicate to me that I am as far separated from most of my fellow AmeriKans, as being on the dark side of the moon.

I have no common ground or common purpose with these people whatsoever.

Most people aren't posting comments on the NYT website. Those people are the fringes he's talking about.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm fine with you disagreeing. But your "sane metrics" were all conceived and implemented by the state.

"Can you read?" is a statist question? Only statists would care "How many of you can read?"

I don't know, seems like you've built yourself an unfalsifiable position. People are better educated than ever before. There's no way to measure or quantify (or maybe even roughly guess?) how educated people are. In fact, any such measure is statist -- that is: evil (yes, statism is evil). Therefore, I am right.

The big-picture point that I think you're trying to make:

• Private education is thriving and flourishing and doing a great job (think Khan Academy, online woodworking videos, the proliferation of books and their availability, makerspaces, open source, etc.)
• State education is failing horrendously (do I even want to start listing the innumerable ways? No.)

... I agree with completely!

osan and I were focusing on the second item. Since most people spend a tremendous amount of time in the state education system, during the most malleable and impressionable -- and educable! -- period in their lives, the consequence of this system's utter failure on our society is profound.

What is that consequence?

[osan]

Did nobody else get a battery of tests for a guidance counselor to review and tell you what you'd be good at?

No. Never once.

In third grade, however, I was once sent to the nurse's office to take a few tests of basic intelligence. I suspect they deemed me an idiot at that time because I was all manner of trouble to my teacher. I'd just lost my mom, and on top of that moved from my home and left all my friends behinds and I guess nobody thought that a severely traumatized 8 year old might not be coping well, particularly given he had nobody helping him with anything. Test involved copying basic geometric figures as rapidly as possible. I completed it and never heard world one about it again.

I know guidance counselors have been $#@!ing with kids before me, because my chiropractor relates that (at least 20 years before I was in school) he was told he'd never amount to anything and not to bother with college.

The compassion of the "left". I say left because the teaching industry is rotten with lefties. The whole institution is polluted with progressivism. It is no wonder so many graduate high school 20x more stupid and ignorant than when they started in kindergarten.

As for guidance counselors - Ms. Schneider blanched when I told her I wanted to take "shop" classes. The whole dealio for her in those days was to place students into college. I did what I wanted and still became an engineer. Silly, timid broad didn't give a rat's ass about me, but only her own measure of success, no matter whether her self-interest driven recommendations brought me to some harm. The world is rife with small evils, which is why parents need to be clued-in and obnoxiously engaged in their children's schooling. If I had kids in schools, they would take contracts out on me before the first week was over because I would not let them get away with the least of their dangerously unsound shenanigans... assuming I'd ever allow my children in such a crap hole as a public school. I wouldn't.