Gary Johnson Disputes Rand Paul’s Libertarian Cred

[P3ter_Griffin]

If he brought substance to this 'dispute', by outlining how his' and rand's policies differ in order to court voters it would be one thing, but this is just slinging mud no different than the left and right do to each other and themselves. This article mention that the article they got it from was vague, so maybe there is more meat and potatoes than we have seen.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So the Libertarian Party doesn't care about restoring liberty in America? They only care about their party?

They've been hijacked by "fiscal conservative social liberals". The Constitution Party is better, though still by no means perfect.

 

[Sola_Fide]

They've been hijacked by "fiscal conservative social liberals". The Constitution Party is better, though still by no means perfect.

I was really turned off by Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party. They are racist, neoconfederate, Roman Catholic, Federal Visionist, Reconstructionist totlitarians.

 

[thoughtomator]

The Libertarian Party was always a running joke, but they really jumped the shark with the nomination of Bob Barr. I wouldn't let that guy - or anyone with a background of "firebreathing drug warrior" - in the door of a local libertarian meetup group. I don't care if he's changed his opinions, any minimal level of self-awareness would inform him that he is a grossly inappropriate character to be carrying a libertarian banner.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I was really turned off by Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party. They are racist, neoconfederate, Roman Catholic, Federal Visionist, Reconstructionist totlitarians.

Their platform is more explicitly Christian, which I like. I'm just referring to their platform, not really anything else. Their platform doesn't go far enough in refutiating statism and promoting liberty, but I'm convinced that secular libertarianism cannot acheive ANY meaningful liberty. I'm not even sure a truly Christian libertarian such as yourself has anything meaningful in common with secular libertarianism. Secularism is arbitrary and thus de fac. tyrannical. You might have arguments with certain aspects of reconstructionism, but at least by binding government to scripture they have the first bulwark against tyranny. Secular libertarians do not. (I also think a view that says Gary North or Joel McDurmon is "tyrannical" is kind of wrong on its own face, so unless you're talking about different reconstructionists than I'm familiar with, I'm not sure your perception is correct.)

 

[Sola_Fide]

Their platform is more explicitly Christian, which I like. I'm just referring to their platform, not really anything else. Their platform doesn't go far enough in refutiating statism and promoting liberty, but I'm convinced that secular libertarianism cannot acheive ANY meaningful liberty. I'm not even sure a truly Christian libertarian such as yourself has anything meaningful in common with secular libertarianism. Secularism is arbitrary and thus de fac. tyrannical. You might have arguments with certain aspects of reconstructionism, but at least by binding government to scripture they have the first bulwark against tyranny. Secular libertarians do not. (I also think a view that says Gary North or Joel McDurmon is "tyrannical" is kind of wrong on its own face, so unless you're talking about different reconstructionists than I'm familiar with, I'm not sure your perception is correct.)

I agree that secularism can never sustain enduring freedom. I always argue that.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree that secularism can never sustain enduring freedom. I always argue that.

Edit: Gary North is tyrannical. Joel McDurmon not so much so.

 

[philipped]

If he brought substance to this 'dispute', by outlining how his' and Rand's policies differ in order to court voters it would be one thing, but this is just slinging mud no different than the left and right do to each other and themselves.

This is what I've been waiting for him to do since I heard he wanted to run again for next year. If there is a true libertarian vote to court, as a potential general election voter in a hypothetical Bush vs. Clinton match-up, I wish to see GJ provide platform and policy positions to the up rather than left or right (if you know what I mean) then Rand.

As Collins stated, this will only do Rand's really challenging hard work for him. BUT if he really keeps up with the major party candidates on a campaign trail doing what I was able to see Adrian Wyllie in Florida do by going to Libertarian Parties by county, and Tea Party groups by county from now till November, he actually could do something significant if Rand wins the nomination. But if it's Clinton and Bush.......

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree that secularism can never sustain enduring freedom. I always argue that.

Which puts you closer to the theonomist side than the mainstream libertarian movement, TBH.

Edit: Gary North is tyrannical. Joel McDurmon not so much so.

I think I'm more like McDurmon, but just out of curiosity, what does North believe in particular that you'd consider tyrannical?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Which puts you closer to the theonomist side than the mainstream libertarian movement, TBH.



I think I'm more like McDurmon, but just out of curiosity, what does North believe in particular that you'd consider tyrannical?

Haha...read Unconditional Surrender or Political Polytheism by Gary North. It will make your stomach turn.

 

[Sola_Fide]

FF, then read Dominion and Common Grace and get really sick from statism.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Haha...read Unconditional Surrender or Political Polytheism by Gary North. It will make your stomach turn.

Do you have some particular quotes? Both works are particularly wrong.

That said, I just remembered something that John Robbins pointed out about North... Gary North actively believes that non-believers should be enslaved by civil government. So, I think you could say he's tyrannical based on that. I don't think merely wanting to enforce the law that God actually wrote for the Israelites could properly be called tyrannical. Maybe you don't agree with it based on this or that theological interpretation, but I think Hebrews 2:2 would blatantly refute calling it "tyrannical."

 

[Christian Liberty]

FF, then read Dominion and Common Grace and get really sick from statism.

I think I'm at like 1,300 pages now I wish I had that king of time. But as a college student, I really don't.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I seriously wish I could just read everything... It would be nice.... Since I don't have the time, can you tell me exactly what propositions (not necessarily every single one if its too many) Gary North supports that are tyrannical? Or, more generally, are you saying that Gary North is tyrannical because he wants to enforce the laws as they were given in the Old Testament (which would be more or less definitional of theonomy, with nuances)? Or do you call him tyrannical because of something he himself adds which was never supposed to be enforced?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think I'm at like 1,300 pages now I wish I had that king of time. But as a college student, I really don't.

Are you going to PHC?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Are you going to PHC?

Yes. I am going to PHC.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes. I am going to PHC.

Ahhhh. Land of the Reconstructionists.

But hey, I can't say anything about that. I went to a Wesleyan Arminian college. Boy, was I the odd man out! But I know that God had me go there in His perfect predestination.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why is "Reason" running a story like this?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ahhhh. Land of the Reconstructionists.

No. This is not at all the case. If anything its the land of Burkeans, and hardcore statists. In fact, there are only two other theonomists on campus. There are way more outright neoconservatives than there are theonomists.

When I came into school I was the lone ancap who was ready and willing to take on the world. Since then I've gained a lot more grace, and tweaked my political philosophy somewhat. But, I'm still completely against statism of any kind.

But hey, I can't say anything about that. I went to a Wesleyan Arminian college. Boy, was I the odd man out. But I know that God had me go there in His perfect predestination.

PHC isn't as oriented around the GOP as it used to be, and there's a lot of good to it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No. This is not at all the case. If anything its the land of Burkeans, and hardcore statists. In fact, there are only two other theonomists on campus. There are way more outright neoconservatives than there are theonomists.

When I came into school I was the lone ancap who was ready and willing to take on the world. Since then I've gained a lot more grace, and tweaked my political philosophy somewhat. But, I'm still completely against statism of any kind.



PHC isn't as oriented around the GOP as it used to be, and there's a lot of good to it.

The president of PHC was a Reconstructionist who left the movement. I'd be talking to him to see why he left it.