Gary Johnson Wants Driverless Secret Service Cars and a US-Led Gene Editing Revolution

Now, if Johnson were to say that he supports labor unions (as Castle did), that's something that might give me pause.

What exactly did Castle say about labor unions that you disagree with? Can you point me to a quote? There is nothing wrong with freedom of association as long as the govt isn't forcing it on you. Dr. Paul has always been supportive of the right of people in the private marketplace to form unions.
 
So far as I am concerned, the expansion of federal authoritarianism is literally THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of my lifetime, and this is the most anti-liberty libertarian nominee since the foundation of the LP. Every time this guy calls stuff like that "trivial," in my book it thoroughly and utterly discredits him.

Yep. I absolutely agree.

I'll tell you what, though, Johnson and Trump both were blessings in that regard. Because it got people vocal. Which provided the means to observe contrary intention from within. They provided a good means of measurement. Johnson in particular, given that he's running under the Liberty banner.

That's the one thing I'll take away from this cycle. It's the only thing I'll take away from it.
 
Last edited:
What exactly did Castle say about labor unions that you disagree with? Can you point me to a quote? There is nothing wrong with freedom of association as long as the govt isn't forcing it on you. Dr. Paul has always been supportive of the right of people in the private marketplace to form unions.

Had me scratching my head too. Public Unions are a different animal, as that is a forced monopoly.
 
So far as I am concerned, the expansion of federal authoritarianism is literally THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of my lifetime, and this is the most anti-liberty libertarian nominee since the foundation of the LP. Every time this guy calls stuff like that "trivial," in my book it thoroughly and utterly discredits him.

And anyone that supports him. I get not supporting Hillary. Anyone that supported and believed in Ron Paul would never do it. I get not supporting Trump. Anyone that supported and believed in Ron Paul should never do it. And if one believes in this then I cannot understand how one, that looks upon Johnson with a keen eye, could possibly support him either.
 
Yep. I absolutely agree.

I'll tell you what, though, Johnson and Trump both were blessings in that regard. Because it got people vocal. Which provided the means to observe contrary intention from within.

That's the one thing I'll take away from this cycle. It's the only thing I'll take away from it.

It sure has unmasked all the petty tyrants and authoritarianism lovers around here.
 
It sure has unmasked all the petty tyrants and authoritarianism lovers around here.

Yep. But November will come and go, though. Right? It'll get jiggy around here after November. Bet on it.

It's that time. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of caring about feelings.
 
Last edited:
Had me scratching my head too. Public Unions are a different animal, as that is a forced monopoly.

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic/labor-unions
Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy?

Darrell Castle’s answer: I support the right of workers to collectively bargain but I oppose public service unions.

I haven't much else, hopefully r3v will point us to another quote, because I agree with him; even if he didn't answer the question. GJ's answer was one word, "hurt".
 
Because God forbid a libertarian do something stupid...like you know, actually supporting liberties like the freedom of association?

Labor unions have nothing to do with freedom of association.

They're state sponsored cartels which are legally permitted to extort money from businesses.

Go read the Wagner Act and tell me how it's about liberty.
 
http://independentpoliticalreport.c...le-freedom-fighters-and-public-sector-unions/

Darrell Castle: Freedom Fighters and Public-Sector Unions

4 Replies


by Darrell Castle
Constitution Party National Committee Vice-Chairman

What do the people rioting in the Middle East and the people protesting reductions in public-sector union bargaining rights have in common?

Not much, but the driving force behind each of them is similar, and that driving force is economic hardship.



What we are likely seeing is the crumbling of a world economic order that has existed for decades if not for centuries. In the Middle East the order is one of military style-dictators or royal monarchs at the top, often installed and/or maintained by foreign powers. In the West, the order is one of an unsustainable welfare and public employment system.

One interesting difference is that the protesters in the Middle East really are freedom fighters in that they are fighting to overthrow dictators and a way of life that has oppressed them for decades. In other words, they are seeking to tear down an unsustainable and unjust economic order.

In Wisconsin and other American states, the public-sector unions are seeking to force the government that employs them to restore and maintain union bargaining rights and pay levels. In other words they are seeking to maintain an unsustainable and unjust economic order.

Government employees form unions in order to bargain collectively with government representatives. These unions of government employees are called public-sector unions. The system that allows public-sector unions to organize and bargain collectively is unjust because the public unions exist at the expense of taxpayers who have little or no say in their hiring, firing, or contract negotiating.

The public-sector unions are not the equivalent of private-sector unions at a factory or other place of employment who bargain collectively for better pay and working conditions. Those private employees have no ability or interest in lobbying their employers to constantly increase taxes for their benefit. The system that allows public-sector unions to form and exist is unsustainable because virtually every state is now technically bankrupt, as is the federal government.

In the new budget proposed by President Obama on February 14, 2011, the federal government alone will spend 25.9 percent of America’s GDP or about 26 cents of every GDP dollar. That is a crushing burden of taxation on the American public which cannot be sustained. Even the relatively modest cuts proposed in Wisconsin are unacceptable to the public unions because their members don’t seem to grasp the fact that the old order is ending one way or the other. The modest cuts are designed to keep the system afloat for a short time and possibly push it ahead to the next administration, but it is going to take drastic changes in the entire system to prevent the catastrophic chaos that appears to be in our future.

The reasoning behind the demands of public-sector unions is failed logic because by definition they are part of the government to which they object. They are, in reality, toadies of the ruling elite. This is not some poor group of under-paid, over-worked union employees in a cotton mill or factory chicken farm that is simply demanding a living wage. If those in public-sector unions object to government trying to sustain itself without destroying the taxpayers then let them join the private sector where bargaining rights are more solid.

Behind the crises in the Middle East and the crisis in Wisconsin lie the policies of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve policy that it calls “quantitative easing” is causing the exploding prices of food and other commodities around the world. Flooding the world with dollars, as the Federal Reserve has done, lowers the dollar’s value relative to food and other commodities. When people live on a few dollars a day, if that, a 60 percent increase in the price of food is enough to send them into starvation. This increase in food prices is the driving force behind the Middle East revolution; therefore the Federal Reserve is responsible for it.

How then can the crisis in Wisconsin and the crises in the Middle East be diffused before they spread and take more lives? Unfortunately for the public-sector unions, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has made it clear that bailouts are for banks, not people, and certainly not states. However, Middle Eastern governments have responded by giving money to what they call lower and middle class people. Saudi Arabia gave $37 billion to the Shiite minority and released some political prisoners.

Middle Eastern people are sacrificing themselves to end an economic and political order that has oppressed them for decades. The public-sector unions are demonstrating in order to maintain an unsustainable economic system so that they might continue their way of life at taxpayer expense. That is the difference.

he definitely doesn't support public sector labor unions.
 
Labor unions have nothing to do with freedom of association.

LMAO. omg wtf?

They're state sponsored cartels which are legally permitted to extort money from businesses.

Go read the Wagner Act and tell me how it's about liberty.

Nobody here has justified enforcing it with government, and I'm just going to call you a liar in your claim that Castle has.

Look what abandoning your principles has done to you. SMH. Sad. :(
 
Darrell Castle: Freedom Fighters and Public-Sector Unions...

he definitely doesn't support public sector labor unions.

Nope. He sure doesn't. Seems like he supports the Individual's freedom of choice to join or not join any organization of his fellow employers or any organization of his fellow workers without restraint or coercion by the government.

Of course, these are fundamentals. Supporting rights would be property rights (money and whatnot) The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

End of the day, Man organizes government to be his tools. That's the way it's supposed to be. Not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Labor unions have nothing to do with freedom of association.

They're state sponsored cartels which are legally permitted to extort money from businesses.

Go read the Wagner Act and tell me how it's about liberty.

Kinda of chicken and the egg. Which came first, corporation ( a type of association) that is granted certian state privileges or the reaction to that, which is workers organizing too, and yes also lobbying the government for their interests, as do corporations.

Let's say state was totally neutrel. Would workers be prevented from free association to withdraw their services? I actually have come to the belief that many companies prefer unions in some of the higher skilled fields as it gives them more control vs. having to negotiation with many individual contracts. Seniority from being in a union can actually be to the advantage of the company, harder to leave and start over at the bottom of another company.
 
Last edited:
Kinda of chicken and the egg. Which came first, corporation ( a type of association) that is granted certian state privileges or the reaction to that, which is workers organizing too, and yes also lobbying the government for their interests, as do corporations.

Let's say state was totally neutrel. Would workers be prevented from free association to withdraw their services? I actually have come to the belief that many companies prefer unions in some of the higher skilled fields as it gives them more control vs. having to negotiation with many individual contracts.

In their current form I look upon unions as corporate mediators that are paid for at worker expense.
 
I haven't much else, hopefully r3v will point us to another quote, because I agree with him; even if he didn't answer the question. GJ's answer was one word, "hurt".

I don't think you appreciate what "collective bargaining" means. It doesn't just mean that some workers form a voluntary society and try to negotiate with the employer as a unit. It's a process defined by the Wagner Act of 1935 (and amended somewhat thereafter) which gets the federal government deeply involved in the labor market: generally by coercing the employer to tip the scales of the "negotiation" in favor of the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

The clear meaning of Castle's answer is that he's fine with labor unions as presently constituted (i.e. coercive labor unions as regulated by the Wagner Act), provided they're only in the private sector. This is a common position among run of the mill GOP politicians, who don't generally want to touch the issue of coercive labor unionism itself, limiting their criticism to coercive labor unions in the public sector.
 
lol you'd probably justify this guy breaking open the heads of 'undesirables' with a baseball bat just because he has the right 'party' after his name. SMDH
Why don't you just make up more bs to justify your ramblings, I never said anything, anywhere close to what you said. Is there anything wrong with Driverless cars or genetic editing? That in and of itself has zero jack crap to do with your government authoritarian tantrum, which neither I nor from this op imply. I support the private sector, and government staying out of the way. Johnson is light years, not perfect but better than Trump or Hillary. If you want to fight against the make believe you made up in your own mind go find someone else.
 
In their current form I look upon unions as corporate mediators that are paid for at worker expense.

But an individual that is highly skilled would have to pay a professional negotiator too.

But I think I know what you are saying now that I retread it, and I agree.

But I would llke to add,, in my field they are absolutely necessary with our current structure.

As safety would not have advance as it has throughout the years if it wasn't for a strong Union fighting the bean counters.
 
Last edited:
Kinda of chicken and the egg. Which came first, corporation ( a type of association) that is granted certian state privileges or the reaction to that, which is workers organizing too, and yes also lobbying the government for their interests, as do corporations.

What privileges?

If you mean limited liability for contractual obligations, that's not a privilege, that's a term of a voluntarily agreed upon contract.

Let's say state was totally neutrel. Would workers be prevented from free association to withdraw their services? I actually have come to the belief that many companies prefer unions in some of the higher skilled fields as it gives them more control vs. having to negotiation with many individual contracts. Seniority from being in a union can actually be to the advantage of the company, harder to leave and start over at the bottom of another company.

As I said above, there's nothing wrong with voluntary unions.

The point is that unions are not in fact voluntary, and never have been to any meaningful extent.

Since 1935 they've been coercive by law. Prior to that, they employed coercion illegally.
 
Back
Top