Gary Johnson: "You ARE Libertarian"

[leper84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x9bkXVccAs&feature=plcp

I'd like to see what some here think. I'm still shocked that as much distaste there is for both Obama and Romney this guy hasn't taken off more.

What would DQ him from yalls vote?

 

[cybrsage]

Does he support the Fair Tax?

 

[xj0hnx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x9bkXVccAs&feature=plcp

I'd like to see what some here think. I'm still shocked that as much distaste there is for both Obama and Romney this guy hasn't taken off more.

What would DQ him from yalls vote?

People don't want freedom, they want their party to tell the people what to do.

 

[berzerker60]

He's libertarian. It's a philosophy that shares all of the flaws of communism: doesn't actually work well when you try it in reality, but damned if its followers aren't zealous and have a dogmatic answer for how their system will solve every problem naturally (hint: it doesn't). The key problems are even the same - flawed, overly simplistic views of human nature combined with the difficult realities of gathering enough information to make good decisions. Taken in small doses, the principles are good - liberty and opportunity for libertarianism; equality, fairness, and community for communism - but don't work as a wholesale solution. Both philosophies are most commonly represented by privileged white college kids certain they've figured everything out, if only everyone else wasn't too stupid to understand it.

At least libertarians can't resort back to the same thing communists say ("but real communism has never been tried!") - because there are too many examples in history and the present day of stateless shitholes and no examples of libertarian paradises where the free market has actually solved all the problem it's supposed to - but somehow that doesn't seem to deter them.

 

[tcG]

^ Ideological "moderation" results in a slide toward the same centralized and exploitable control that you presumably find objectionable about communism.

Moderation as a political compass isn't that much better than full totalitarianism. Moderates want certain values and actions forced upon others all the same. The result is a tendency toward more and more government control in each election cycle, with no regard for the principle of limited government. The Republican's ideology justifies the bad foreign policy, repressive social controls, Big Brother, et. al. The Democrat's ideology justifies various immoral and ineffective economic policies. It's better to not have decisions made and values enforced by a group of elected elites in the first place.

I think the verbiage we use to discuss political compasses and degrees of ideology has been distorted. Any policy of government action, being coercive and an initiation of force, is what is actually extremist. The status of freedom/control on most single issues is dualistic. Either you have freedom on that issue or you don't. For some reason somebody is allowed to advocate all kinds of social control, theft, and aggression for certain issues and still be called moderate just because they want freedom in other issues.

 

[Smoblikat]

He's libertarian. It's a philosophy that shares all of the flaws of communism: doesn't actually work well when you try it in reality, but damned if its followers aren't zealous and have a dogmatic answer for how their system will solve every problem naturally (hint: it doesn't). The key problems are even the same - flawed, overly simplistic views of human nature combined with the difficult realities of gathering enough information to make good decisions. Taken in small doses, the principles are good - liberty and opportunity for libertarianism; equality, fairness, and community for communism - but don't work as a wholesale solution. Both philosophies are most commonly represented by privileged white college kids certain they've figured everything out, if only everyone else wasn't too stupid to understand it.

At least libertarians can't resort back to the same thing communists say ("but real communism has never been tried!") - because there are too many examples in history and the present day of stateless shitholes and no examples of libertarian paradises where the free market has actually solved all the problem it's supposed to - but somehow that doesn't seem to deter them.

I agree with you somewhat on specific issues (like America only worrying about America, I believe this led to WWII) I hardly see a small federal government that gives people the rights they deserve as being a commie.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that folk are libertarian who believe that the perfect should get in the way of the good, that they are too pure of conscious to vote for an evil party, even one less evil than the other. I call this the egotism of stupidity, pride over country, political snootiness over reality thinking. I have no use at all for the democratic party except for the fact that only a democrat will ever defeat a republican, the party of the greatest evil so I am forced by conscious to swallow my pride and hold my nose and vote democrat down the line. There is no chance whatsoever that a libertarian will win and voting for one is wasting a chance to vote against evil. This is simply reality but people don't care enough for their country to give up being egotist purists. It's just running away and trying to say their hands are clean when they are actually dirtier than mine.

 

[tcG]

By voting for the lesser of two evils, you perpetuate and give tacit consent to a system of voting that is completely rigged in favor of various powerful interests.

Voting gives the illusion of freedom and of a functioning representative democracy where the government is responsive to the will of the people. Such is not the situation in the fake political theater we call the federal election process.

 

[Abraxas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x9bkXVccAs&feature=plcp

I'd like to see what some here think. I'm still shocked that as much distaste there is for both Obama and Romney this guy hasn't taken off more.

What would DQ him from yalls vote?

Because he, like the rest of the Libertarian faithful, he believes companies that engage in anticompetitive practices, workplace safety violations, outright fraud, unsafe product releases, etc. even with the few regulations we are able to cram past their lobbyists will suddenly behave when freed from any kind of accountability to the American people. That or they just don't care about things like workplace safety, pollution, or consumer safety which is equally disqualifying.

 

[Anarchist420]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x9bkXVccAs&feature=plcp

I'd like to see what some here think. I'm still shocked that as much distaste there is for both Obama and Romney this guy hasn't taken off more.

What would DQ him from yalls vote?

The fact that he is not dr. Paul and is therefore not a Dixiecratic anti federalist. He favors sending in federal troops to enforce individual rights against the States and the people.

He also likes Ayn rand who was a statist, prowar, proIP neocon. Ayn rand believed that Americans should be forced to take sides in the middle east conflict, so fuck her twice as much as the average joe... and fuck anyone 4x as much as the average joe who favors her over dr. Rothbard.
Govt can't protect rights, the only way to maximize individual liberty under a state is to have confederalism.

 

[CycloWizard]

Because he, like the rest of the Libertarian faithful, he believes companies that engage in anticompetitive practices, workplace safety violations, outright fraud, unsafe product releases, etc. even with the few regulations we are able to cram past their lobbyists will suddenly behave when freed from any kind of accountability to the American people. That or they just don't care about things like workplace safety, pollution, or consumer safety which is equally disqualifying.

I see this as a common argument. However, it fails because it assumes that fewer regulations will result in more fraud. IMO, the current system fails because it has millions of regulations which are selectively enforced. Fewer regulations will allow fewer loopholes making enforcement more straightforward. Fraud is fraud. Having 1235235 different regulations for fraud simply means that the definition for each type of fraud is extremely narrow and easily skirted.

 

[Phokus]

"I'm the only candidate that agrees with you 100%"

Yeah, nice cherry picking stats. 2/3rds of Americans want to raise taxes on those making 250k or more. That includes 51% of REPUBLICANS. And Social security, Medicaid, Medicare remain incredibly popular with the American people (in fact, most don't want any of those programs cut, and way more people want the military budget cut instead).

We are not libertarians.

 

[UberNeuman]

"You ARE Libertarian" if you live in a fantasy land...

 

[Abraxas]

I see this as a common argument. However, it fails because it assumes that fewer regulations will result in more fraud. IMO, the current system fails because it has millions of regulations which are selectively enforced. Fewer regulations will allow fewer loopholes making enforcement more straightforward. Fraud is fraud. Having 1235235 different regulations for fraud simply means that the definition for each type of fraud is extremely narrow and easily skirted.

Then you aren't dealing with Libertarianism. One broad regulation that covers everything is every bit the government intervention in the market as 1235235 is. The difference is in general libertarians want to gut the agencies responsible for detecting fraud and so it makes it harder to discover.

 

[Anarchist420]

[...] in general libertarians want to gut the agencies responsible for detecting fraud and so it makes it harder to discover.

That has never been conclusively proven. However it has been conclusively proven that corporations will use the govt to their advantage just as much if not more than they'd use the market to their advantage. When you say liberty is like communism in that they are impossible, youre making a fallacy... and it is a fallacy to say that because it is hard to imagine a modern govt not used and abused by corporations.

Also, i wish people would realize that there hasn't been anywhere close to a free market under the u.s. federal constitution since before the civil war. As soon as pierce signed a law making foreign coins illegal, the free market ceased to exist. It also didn't exist before Andrew Jackson got rid of the 2nd central bank. Basically, the freest societies were those of medieval Ireland, medieval iceland, the articles of confederation era, and only a few others. There have been very few free eras throughout history.

 

[actuarial]

That has never been conclusively proven. However it has been conclusively proven that corporations will use the govt to their advantage just as much if not more than they'd use the market to their advantage.

If this were true, wouldn't companies be clamoring for more and more regulation?

 

[CycloWizard]

Then you aren't dealing with Libertarianism. One broad regulation that covers everything is every bit the government intervention in the market as 1235235 is. The difference is in general libertarians want to gut the agencies responsible for detecting fraud and so it makes it harder to discover.

Libertarianism is not anarchism, nor are all libertarians the same. I doubt all "liberals" and "conservatives" are the same, just as I doubt you share all of the views of any of the political parties. If you do, I apologize for assuming you have a brain and actually use it. If I'm right, please extend me the same courtesy.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Utopias...so wonderful in principle, so impossible in practice.

 

[thraashman]

The fact that he is not dr. Paul and is therefore not a Dixiecratic anti federalist. He favors sending in federal troops to enforce individual rights against the States and the people.

He also likes Ayn rand who was a statist, prowar, proIP neocon. Ayn rand believed that Americans should be forced to take sides in the middle east conflict, so fuck her twice as much as the average joe... and fuck anyone 4x as much as the average joe who favors her over dr. Rothbard.
Govt can't protect rights, the only way to maximize individual liberty under a state is to have confederalism.

Here's something I don't get about you. You virtually worship Ron Paul but at the same time you're bad mouthing Ayn Rand. Yet Ron Paul is such a worshipper of Ayn Rand that he named his freaking son in reference to her.

 

[tcG]

Here's something I don't get about you. You virtually worship Ron Paul but at the same time you're bad mouthing Ayn Rand. Yet Ron Paul is such a worshipper of Ayn Rand that he named his freaking son in reference to her.

Randal Howard Paul... Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".[9][12][13]

Also, i wish people would realize that there hasn't been anywhere close to a free market under the u.s. federal constitution since before the civil war. As soon as pierce signed a law making foreign coins illegal, the free market ceased to exist. It also didn't exist before Andrew Jackson got rid of the 2nd central bank. Basically, the freest societies were those of medieval Ireland, medieval iceland, the articles of confederation era, and only a few others. There have been very few free eras throughout history.

Very true!

 

[nextJin]

I like Johnson more than the others but it's simply not a true statement. If Republicans and Democrats had to deal with those ideals it would be like starving an obese person or refusing crack to a crack head.

And for the record most everyone who trash talks libertarians have never read a book on them or read anti-libertarian literature. Most simply group us with anarchists which is incredibly asinine.

 

[woolfe9999]

Here's something I don't get about you. You virtually worship Ron Paul but at the same time you're bad mouthing Ayn Rand. Yet Ron Paul is such a worshipper of Ayn Rand that he named his freaking son in reference to her.

No smaller irony is the fact that RP calls himself a "Constitutionalist" and A420 argues that the Constitution is itself an illegal document and that we should go back to the Articles of Confederation.

BTW, RP did not name his son after Ayn Rand. He is, however, a fan of hers and has stated as much more than once. That said, RP has criticized Ayn Rand for her atheism. This may be why some Paulbots do not like Ayn Rand, at least the Christian ones.

 

[conehead433]

Why not look at Gary Johnson's stand on the issues, compare them to those of Obama and Romney, and then make an intelligent decision about who to vote for.

Foreign Policy - http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy

Spending and the Deficit - http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/spending-and-the-deficit

The Economy and Taxes - http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes

Drug Policy Reform - http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/drug-policy-reform

Civil Liberties - http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties

Education - http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/education

 

[Anarchist420]

If this were true, wouldn't companies be clamoring for more and more regulation?

they do all the time.

Here's something I don't get about you. You virtually worship Ron Paul but at the same time you're bad mouthing Ayn Rand. Yet Ron Paul is such a worshipper of Ayn Rand that he named his freaking son in reference to her.

first i dont just virtually worship dr. Paul, i actually worship him. Secondly, tag and Wolfe beat me to it... Dr. Paul did not name his son after her.

Very true!

thank you

No smaller irony is the fact that RP calls himself a "Constitutionalist" and A420 argues that the Constitution is itself an illegal document and that we should go back to the Articles of Confederation.

BTW, RP did not name his son after Ayn Rand. He is, however, a fan of hers and has stated as much more than once. That said, RP has criticized Ayn Rand for her atheism. This may be why some Paulbots do not like Ayn Rand, at least the Christian ones.

dr. Paul prefers the articles of confederation and he invokes the u.s. federal constitution to show that govts are lawless.

As for ayn rand... there are reasons why a lot of libertarians don't follow her. I'm not a fan of her because she was too authoritarian and a lot of her followers are neocons, so I don't fit in with them. She believed the u.s. gov should support Israel, her virtue of selfishness book gave liberals an excuse to not support liberty, and she didn't like the Confederate movement so those are three more reasons I don't follow her. Finally, i dont follow her because she took a very authoritarian position on ip. If dr rothbard lampooned her in at least one of his writings, then libertarians have good reason not to follow her.

 

[Abraxas]

Libertarianism is not anarchism, nor are all libertarians the same. I doubt all "liberals" and "conservatives" are the same, just as I doubt you share all of the views of any of the political parties. If you do, I apologize for assuming you have a brain and actually use it. If I'm right, please extend me the same courtesy.

Note how I said "in general"? Reading comprehension, learn it.