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

[Natural Citizen]

Is there anything wrong with...genetic editing?

Well. I dont know. Do you want to take a chance on your great-grandchildren having to pay royalties to those who own the patents just to justify their very existence and right to Life? Not only that, but now they have created genetic switches to be turned on and off. True story, man. Plus the nationalized healthcare thing has people's entire medical history conveniently inventoried.

I like owning my body. All of it. All of the time.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This new term "editing" is an interesting spin on language, btw. I think I'd posted something on this some time ago. That this would be the new PR language. I'll likely never find it now. Anyway, they use that language to avoid any kind of regulation. The companie claim that genetic "editing" can't be considered genetic "engineering" and because they say it can't be considered genetic ""engineering", then, nobod ycan question it or scrutinoze it. Which is BS.

 

[specsaregood]

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.

That isn't clear at all, especially with his limited federal govt stance on other issues. I'd wager that he would say the federal govt should have no role here. email him and ask.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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?

What, precisely does any of that have to do with the federal government?

That in and of itself has zero jack crap to do with your government authoritarian tantrum, which neither I nor from this op imply.

How does President Johnson plan to force the United States to produce driverless cars and gene therapies?

I support the private sector, and government staying out of the way.

That's good. Too bad we don't have a candidate for President who does likewise.

Johnson is light years, not perfect but better than Trump or Hillary.

That would be an opinion. One I do not share. Their respective expansions of federal power differ only in flavor. Just because Johnson's perversions and obliterations of the Constitutional balance of power just so happens to be sugar coated in "libertarian sounding vocalizations" does not make them any less horrific to me. Perhaps they do to you, like they do to Rev3. But even then that is merely your subjective opinion, and not by any means objective fact.

I oppose the perversion and destruction of the Constitution, even when...perhaps especially when...such distortions might otherwise be attractive to me.

If you want to fight against the make believe you made up in your own mind go find someone else.

you mean like the make believe 'libertarian' you made up in your mind and promptly applied to Gary Johnson?

 

[Danke]

Which is pretty common in the nonunionized tech industry, often called recruiters.

So they all have to pay.

The thing in my industry, it is not a one time deal, we are always battling against contract violations and pilot pushing. Most people don't realize that a pilot with a strong Union behind him, can make safety decisions and not worry about being fired. That is a huge distinction, especially if you have a wife and children at home to feed, etc. I also want my mechanics and dispatchers to have a strong Union, but if they don't, I am the final word. It is my life and ticket (license, career) on the line. Passengers that complain about me delaying, refusing or diverting, etc. that inconveniences them may me laugh and sad. They have no idea what I'm doing to make sure it is a safe journey. Schedule is nice, but your pink butt is what a Union pilot can provide. Most equipment that has been added throughout the years that increased safety has been because of a union fighting/ lobbying for it to be mandatory.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

And you just assume that Castle opposes the Right To Work because...... ?

Because such assumptions make it easier to justify your personal support for Johnson maybe?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And you just assume that Castle opposes the Right To Work because...... ?

Because he said he supports collective bargaining, which is the exact opposite of Right to Work....... ?

Collective bargaining, I reiterate, entails a whole series of coercive practices, including workers being forced to accept collective bargaining agreements set forth by the union which they're forced to join and to which they're forced to pay dues. Right To Work is all about eliminating these coercive measures. It's not about allowing workers to organize voluntarily, as that right already exists and has never been in question.

There is zero political controversy about voluntary unions; it's a non-issue.

Anyone talking about unions in American political discourse is (unless they explicitly say otherwise) talking about coercive unions.

 

[William Tell]

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

No it wouldn't. None of the awful things Johnson/Weld have said so far have given you pause. You still consider it an A rated ticket.

That isn't clear at all, especially with his limited federal govt stance on other issues. I'd wager that he would say the federal govt should have no role here. email him and ask.

Yep. By r3v's logic we should assume all pro trade libertarians are for NAFTA because, well NAFTA was called pro trade.

 

[Danke]

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.



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.

I see your point, but can a company not refuse to hire union workers? Unions are at an all time low, whatever laws they have been using don't seem to have been effective.

 

[Nighthawkeye]

What, precisely does any of that have to do with the federal government?



How does President Johnson plan to force the United States to produce driverless cars and gene therapies?

Where does Johnson say he plans to "force" the united states to produce a driverless care or gene editing. He said he would like to ride around in the car, and said he would like to get the government out of the way from preventing gene editing. There is no force implied there. You are taking his support of something, into an implied government force of something. They are not the same thing.

As for Johnson, I have had issue with some of Gary Johnson's views and have also said Weld is not very libertarian As for levels of Authoritarianism its not even remotely close Trump and Hillary are way more As for Castle I think he is benefiting on these boards by not having to face rigorous questioning by media. This allows supporters to assume the best of him as their is virtually no info out there, other than the bit he has been able to control. If your view is just to throw out a protest vote, you might as well write in Ron Paul. I don't see an advantage of voting for Castle over a write in vote for Ron Paul.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

By r3v's logic we should assume all pro trade libertarians are for NAFTA because, well NAFTA was called pro trade.

Suppose someone were making a pro paper money comment.

Would it reasonable to assume that they supported inflationary monetary policy by the government, or Hayek's free market paper money?

...the former, because 99.99999999% of the time anyone is talking about paper money, that's what they're talking about.

If you can show me another statement of Castle's where he specifics that he's only in favor of voluntary unions, great.

Until then, I'm going with the rational assumption to the contrary.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I see your point, but can a company not refuse to hire union workers?

I don't know the exact details, but basically employers (of a certain size I think, not all employers) are required to hold a vote on unionization if/when certain conditions are met (e.g. petition of some kind is submitted). If the vote passes, then a (coercive) union is formed, and once it's formed and there are "negotiations," the resulting "agreements" (which presumably include restrictions on firing union workers, among many other stipulations) are binding on the employer.

Unions are at an all time low, whatever laws they have been using seem to have been effective.

The laws have (most fortunately) been weakened over the years.

The original Wagner Act was practically bolshevik in its design, with unions being led in revolutionary activity by actual, card carrying Communists.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Because he said he supports collective bargaining, which is the exact opposite of Right to Work....... ?

Uh. no. No it isn't. Collective bargaining only becomes opposed to the Right To Work when employees are forced into the unions against their will, by government fiat. Voluntary associations are called "liberty." See First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Collective bargaining, I reiterate, entails a whole series of coercive practices, including workers being forced to accept collective bargaining agreements set forth by the union which they're forced to join and to which they're forced to pay dues. Right To Work is all about eliminating these coercive measures. It's not about allowing workers to organize voluntarily, as that right already exists and has never been in question.

Right to Work eliminates government regulations that permit unions to force people to join against their will. I live in a Right To Work state. I helped craft our current Right To Work law. By no means did it come out of the sausage grinder perfect, but it's not bad. The point to that is that having actually helped write and pass Right To Work law in North Carolina, I think I might have a pretty good idea what "Right To Work" means, and it certainly does NOT mean banning public association by government gun and fiat.

There is zero political controversy about voluntary unions; it's a non-issue.

Except for your unfounded assumption that Castle supportes government forced unionization simply because he used a term that you clearly fail to comprehend.

Anyone talking about unions in American political discourse is (unless they explicitly say otherwise) talking about coercive unions.

riiight. So when Ron Paul talked about unions he was being a progressive libtard? Simply because "the U-word" passed out from between his lips?

 

[specsaregood]

If you can show me another statement of Castle's where he specifics that he's only in favor of voluntary unions, great.

Until then, I'm going with the rational assumption to the contrary.

So basically you are just making shit up on the fly, with no real basis for assuming what his position is. good to know. maybe I'll email him on the subject. I'd wager a campaign donation that his position is the same as Dr. Pauls.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Where does Johnson say he plans to "force" the united states to produce a driverless care or gene editing. He said he would like to ride around in the car, and said he would like to get the government out of the way from preventing gene editing. There is no force implied there. You are taking his support of something, into an implied government force of something. They are not the same thing.

How exactly is he going to acquire a driverless Presidential limo without either forcing someone to produce it, or spending enough taxpayer money to pay someone to produce it?

Like, magic or something?

As for Johnson, I have had issue with some of Gary Johnson's views and have also said Weld is not very libertarian As for levels of Authoritarianism its not even remotely close Trump and Hillary are way more As for Castle I think he is benefiting on these boards by not having to face rigorous questioning by media. This allows supporters to assume the best of him as their is virtually no info out there, other than the bit he has been able to control. If your view is just to throw out a protest vote, you might as well write in Ron Paul. I don't see an advantage of voting for Castle over a write in vote for Ron Paul.

Just because Johnson's specific violations of our liberty are more appealing to us as a group than Trump's or Hillary's violations, does not make his violations any less severe, it only makes them easier to swallow. Some (like me) might even say that is even more dangerous than the openly offensive kind, because it's insidious.

 

[William Tell]

If you can show me another statement of Castle's where he specifics that he's only in favor of voluntary unions, great.

Until then, I'm going with the rational assumption to the contrary.

Give me a break. You tried to deter people from supporting Castle by falsely claiming he supported bans on gambling and porn. When you were shown he specifically said the government shouldn't be involved in that stuff you still didn't remove those issues from your list. We both supported Rand. I realize we support different candidates now, and as an individual I can respect your choice. But my problems with what Johnson and Weld stand for is what they actually say. Dishonest attacks just irritate people. If I make a mistake I try to fix it. With you it seems to be a waste of time to point out your errors.

 

[specsaregood]

Give me a break. You tried to deter people from supporting Castle by falsely claiming he supported bans on gambling and porn. When you were shown he specifically said the government shouldn't be involved in that stuff you still didn't remove those issues from your list. We both supported Rand. I realize we support different candidates now, and as an individual I can respect your choice. But my problems with what Johnson and Weld stand for is what they actually say. Dishonest attacks just irritate people. If I make a mistake I try to fix it. With you it seems to be a waste of time to point our your errors.

Seriously, in the answers to questions that I've seen from Castle he would have fit in great around here 2007-2015. His answers are often talk about underlying principles and freedom; they aren't one word answers. They are very Ron-Paul esque.

 

[Danke]

I don't know the exact details, but basically employers (of a certain size I think, not all employers) are required to hold a vote on unionization if/when certain conditions are met (e.g. petition of some kind is submitted). If the vote passes, then a (coercive) union is formed, and once it's formed and there are "negotiations," the resulting "agreements" (which presumably include restrictions on firing union workers, among many other stipulations) are binding on the employer.



The laws have (most fortunately) been weakened over the years.

The original Wagner Act was practically bolshevik in its design, with unions being led in revolutionary activity by actual, card carrying Communists.

I think I may be in agreement with you, in the big picture. But the nuts and bolts, unions have been screwed by the government courts.

I was hired at a company that valued my background (gave them lower liability insurance rates, less training, etc.)

But they promised me a pension as part of me agreeing to come to their company over others that wanted me.

They used a now proven corrupt court and judge ((all sectioned by the state, I.e. Government )). To raid those well funded accounts and leave me with pennies on the dollar.


Do I think unions are perfect? Hell no. But corporations are getting away with robbery by the force of our judiciary. Breaking contracts and staying in business.

Can workers do that, nope. They might even be blacklisted and not find employment if they made waives.

 

[William Tell]

Seriously, in the answers to questions that I've seen from Castle he would have fit in great around here 2007-2015. His answers are often talk about underlying principles and freedom; they aren't one word answers. They are very Ron-Paul esque.

Yeah. No candidate is perfect, but when the only attacks really being used against Castle are guilt by association or outright false, it says something.

 

[Nighthawkeye]

How exactly is he going to acquire a driverless Presidential limo without either forcing someone to produce it, or spending enough taxpayer money to pay someone to produce it?

Like, magic or something?

How does a president get around in a car now a days, did they force people to create cars? Unless your argument is against the expense of say Air force 1 or the White House etc or anything a president uses in general. But I assume you are talking about the creation of the technology. If its produced through the free market their is no force needed. If it is the latter well that kind of eliminates the position of Presidency all together, but its not apparent that a driverless car for the president could end up being cheaper in the long run than one with secret service driving.

Just because Johnson says he would like to ride around in a driverless car does not imply from him a desire to force the creation of said item. If he proposed money grants to get them you would have a point, but as of right now he hasn't

As for you going on about somehow we/I am ok with Johnson using force because we support the ideals behind it, that is bogus. Lets take the cake baking issue, I haven't seen anyone off hand on these boards actually say they agree with gary on that issue. The only thing I have seen is people saying its not enough of an issue to change their willingness to vote for him. Its as if anti-johnson crowd is makeing a mountain out of a mole hill, is gary wrong on the issue yes, is it worthy of voiding a candidacy, not in my opinion.